CANADA HOUSE 0F COMMONS DEBATES OFFICIAL REPORT FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT 7 ELIZABETH II VOLUME 11, 1958 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE ELEVENTH DAY 0F JUNE, 1958, TO THE FIFTEENTH DAY 0F JULY, 1958, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME ZDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P. QUEEN'S FEINTER AND CONTROLLER 0F STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1958 1033 HOUSE OF COMMONS Wednesday, June 11, 1958 The house met at 2.30 p.m. VACANCY Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communica- tion informing me that a vacancy has oc- curred in the representation, namely: Of Hon. Jean Lesage, member for the electoral district of Montmagny-L'Islet, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for a new writ of election for the electoral district. RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterb'orough) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to. CIVIL DEFENCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF SURVEY TO BE CONDUCTED BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL GRAHAM Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare): I should like ta an- nounce that Lieutenant General Howard D. Graham, following his retirement on August 31 from the post of chief of the general staff of the Canadian army, as announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, has agreed to undertake on behalf of the government a comprehensive survey of all aspects of Canada's civil defence policy and program. I might say that in the view of the gov- ernment the need for a thorough reappraisal of current policies and programs at this time is underlined by the changing nature of the threat which confronts civil defence in this and in other countries. In the post-war decade, 1948-1958, during which civil defence has been active, the scale of attack has shifted from atomic to hydrogen weapons. For the years immediately ahead, civil de- fence faces the need to re-examine present plans and assumptions, based largely on hy- drogen weapons, in order to make sure that 57071-3-66 they take sufficient account of the new threat posed by the intercontinental ballistic missile. It is expected that General Graham's sur- vey will require him to visit various provinces of Canada in order to see for himself what progress in civil defence is being made at provincial and local levels. In this he will be expected to consult with provincial and municipal leaders, as well as those familiar with civil defence policies at the national level. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask the minister if General Graham's assignment will include a recommendation regarding the sharing of cost by the three levels of govern- ment, or will he just recommend to the minister proposals for reorganization of civil defence? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I would expect that General Graham would probably study that angle of the problem. Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister suggest to General Graham that when he visits the municipal civil defence authorities he would be well advised to get in touch as much as possible with the persons who have been interested in civil defence, the rank and file. I think it would be of great value to him if he did so and that he would have a better understand- ing of their needs, requirements and dis- satisfactions. Mr. Monteith (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to pass on that suggestion to General Graham. STARRED QUESTION IMPORTS OF U.K. PRODUCTS AssEMBLED IN U.S. Question No. 11-Mr. Cardin: 1. What was the total amount of Canadian dollars paid to the United States in 1956 for imports of farm tractors manufactured in the United Kingdom and assembled in the United States? 2. Was this amount taken into consideration by the dominion bureau of statistics when compiling its figures regarding the Canadian trade deficit with the United States? 3. Are other products manufactured in the United Kingdom and imported into Canada from the United States? If so, what items? 4. Has the government taken any steps to encourage British companies to assemble farm tractors and other British products in Canada rather than in the United States? If so, with what results? HOUSE OF COMMONS Orders for Returns Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): This question, Mr. Speaker, is a refurbished edition of the one asked by the hon. gentleman last session on January 29, 1958. My answer on that occasion will be the one I give now. It is as follows: Mr. Speaker, no records such as are asked for by the hon. member are kept, and the information is not easily obtainable as it involves tracing the country of origin of components in manufactured articles coming from the United States. That answers the first, second and third parts of the question. As to the fourth part may I say this. British companies are free to establish branches in Canada, are encouraged to do so and have done so in large numbers. The recent United Kingdom trade mission to this country had that as one of its objectives. Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, questions numbered 19, 30, 39, 46, 48, 50, 51, 57, 69, and 71 should be changed to orders for returns. Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): May I just point out that these questions come after orders of the day and really are not on the order paper. Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member for Laurier will look at the bottom of page 3 of the order paper he will find that it is at this stage that the opportunity is given for making questions orders for returns. Mr. Chevrier: I am afraid I was not alert. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS INDIAN BANDS, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY Question No. 19-Mr. Howard: 1. What are the names of the Indian bands or reserves which are within the electoral district of Skeena? 2. Upon what dates since January 1, 1956, has (a) an Indian superintendent; (b) a doctor; (c) a dentist, visited each band or reserve? SALK VACCINE Question No. 30-Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1. To what countries does Canada now export the Salk vaccine? 2. When were the first shipments of the Salk vaccine authorized for export to any receiving country? 3. How many children in Canada have received three shots of the Salk vaccine as of March 31, 1958? 4. What is the total financial contribution of the federal government under dominion-provincial arrangements for the free supply of the Salk vaccine, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958? 5. What is the age beyond which the federal government does not now contribute to the free supply of the Salk vaccine in any or all of the provinces? [Mr. Cardin.] 6. What proportions of the Salk vaccine program in Canada are now manufactured at the Con- naught Medical Research Laboratories, the Institute of Microbiology at the University of Montreal, and private manufacturers? 7. Is the Salk vaccine production in Canada pro- vided by private manufacture in Canada or do all commercial supplies now come from the United States? 8. How many private commercial companies have received permission to sell and distribute the Salk vaccine in Canada? 9. Are the British controls or tests prior to use of the Salk vaccine the same as those provided in Canada? GOVERNMENT PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES Question No. 39-Mr. Argue: 1. How many passenger automobiles have been purchased or contracted for by the government during the present year to date? 2. Of such automobiles, how many are manu- factured In (a) Canada; (b) the United States of America; (c) other countries? 3. For what purpose are cars in categories "b" and "c" being used? KITIMAT-ELECTION EXPENDITURES, 1957 Question No. 46-Mr. Howard: How much money, if any, was spent for the conducting of the 1957 general election for each polling division in Kitimat, British Columbia, for (a) enumerators; (b) remuneration to the deputy returning officers and poll clerks; (c) the rental of premises; (d) other expenses not mentioned above? PUBLIC SERVICE-RETIREMENT EXTENSIONS Question No. 48-Mr. Broome: 1. As of latest date available, how many civil ser- vice employees of the federal government who have reached retirement age are still employed by means of extension permits granted for (a) six months; (b) one year? 2. Are extensions granted for longer periods than one year? 3. If so, how many of such extensions are in effect as of latest date available? WELFARE PAYMENT REPRESENTATIONS Question No. 50-Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1. Has the government received representations from any group or association requesting (a) an increase in the old age security pensions to an amount of $75 per month, payable at age 65 with a means test; (b) amendments to the old age security and old age assistance acts to permit pay- ment of pensions regardless of the country of residence; (c) housing facilities be made available to pensioners through C.M.H.C. or some other gov- ernment agency; (d) amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act to increase the allowable income to $2,000 for married couples and $1,600 for single persons; (e) amendments to the disabled persons allowances act to broaden the definition of a dis- abled person? 2. If so, has the government replied to such representations, and what reply was given? JUNE 11, 1958 TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLIES AND PARTS-IMPORTS Question No. 51-Mr. Broame: 1. Wbat is the value of automnatic transmission assemblies and parts lmported fromn tbe United States by the automobile lndustry. in each of the years 1955-56-57? 2. What is duty rate on (a) complete transmis- sion used ln assembly of motor cars-, (b) on parts? ROADS, BRIDGES, ETC.-ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES Question No. 57-Mr. Argue: i. What bas been the total federal government expenditure for the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1957-58, ln each province on (a) roads, (b) bridges; (c) grade separations? 2. 0f the total amount for each fiscal year. how mucb was paid to each provincial government, and bow much directly by the federal govern- ment for work under its jurisdiction? FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING Question No. 69-Mr. McIIraith: Wbat were the names of advertising firms employed by each department of the governmnent. (a) on April 1, 1957; (b) on April 1. 1958? FEDERAL STEPS TO CURTAIL TRAFFIC DEATHS Question No. 71-Mr. Houck: 1. How many persons have died ln Canada during the year 1957, as a result of automobile and bigh- way traffic accidents? 2. Has the federal government collected any information as to plans or programs designed to curtail loas 0f life fromn automobile or higbway traffic accidents? 3. Has the federal governnient taken any steps to distribute sucb information or bas it taken any such steps to assist in curtailing loss of 111e? MOTIONS FOR PAPERS BEAUCE FLOOD, QUEBEC Motion No. 1O-Mr. Racine: For s copy of ail correspondence exchanged between the town of Beauceville, and any person or persons, and tbe faderai government, concern- ing tbe flooding of the Chaudiere river. last December. Motion agreed to. GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE-STUDY 0F FACILITIES REQUIRED Motion No. 12-Mr. Chevrier: For a copy of the study or survey made by the Department of Public Works. or any officiai thereof. of facilities required at ports and barbours along tbe great lakes-St. Lawrence route, arising out of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and the opening of this route to 27-foot navigation in 1959, and more particularly of improvements to harbour and river works at such ports. Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works>: Mr. Speaker, this motion calis for the production o! reports which are made by officers o! my department to more senior of- ficers in that department, and as such I believe they are privileged and should not be produced. 57071-3-661 Motions for Papers Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this motion is because of a discussion which took place during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I would like to quote from page 930 of Hansard for June 6, 1958, as follows: I simply wanted to bring to his attention- That is to the attention of the minister. -the fact that he should deal with ail ports ln the same manner, and ln order to do that it seema to me that the best way is to have a survey or study made. A little further on the minister intervened as f ollows: It has already been done for practically aUl the ports. To which I replied: I arn giad it has. If it bas, I hope the resuits will be available to those of us on this side of the bouse- It seems to me that it would be useful If these surveys of ports which are made could be given to the house so we would have some information and some knowledge of what improvements are contemplated at su*ch ports. Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, these investiga- tons are made by the officials o! the depart- ment in the course of their duties, and we cannot disclose confidential reports o! this kind. If this were to be done in the course of administration we would get into an im- possible position. I have lin my hand Bourinot's fourth edîtion, page 251, which reads as follows: The practice of asking for reports fromn officers, addressed to particular departments of the execu- tive government. is considered to be open to serious obJection. As to "confidential documents" passing between officers of a department, Mr. speaker Peel observes: "They are not necessarily laid on the table of the bouse, especially If the minister declares that they are of a confidential character.- The reports for which the hon. member for Laurier is asking are of a confidential character, and I suggest they should not be produced. Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I may have a further word on this subject, the hon. gentleman did not say during the course of the discussion that the reports were con- fidential. He does state that now, but all I arn saying at this juncture is that the position he takes is entirely different frorn that which. he took when he sat on this side o! the house and demanded the production of similar documents. Mr. Green: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member can produce any statements in Hansard to back up what he has just said. Mr. Chevrier: Hansarcl is replete with them. HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Mr. Speaker: Order. This motion is not debatable. It is a motion for an order of the house to issue in respect of certain papers. It is not debatable, and the only course is to accept or reject the motion. I am ad- vised by the Clerk that that is the method of disposing of such a motion as this. I ask, then, whether it is the pleasure of the house to adopt the same motion. Some hon. Members: Nay. Some hon. Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost. Motion negatived. TRADE URANIUM-REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE TO JAPAN On the orders of the day: Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will consider initiating or pressing for the initiation of bilateral con- versations with the Japanese government which would make possible the sale of Cana- dian uranium to that country, and thereby prevent the loss of this market to uranium producers in other countries. Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to discuss that question with my colleague the Minister of Trade and Com- merce, who is also interested. FISHERIES REPORTED REGULATION OF NET SIZE ON DRAGGERS On the orders of the day: Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. According to yes- terday's press, regulations now make it un- lawful for Canadian deep sea fishermen to carry both large and small nets on their draggers. Nets must now be one size or the other, with penalties for infringement rang- ing up to $1,000, or imprisonment, or both. Will the minister advise how this regula- tion will be enforced upon foreign shipping fishing on Canada's banks off the east coast of Newfoundland, or does this only apply to Canadian fishing draggers? Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, I think it is superfluous for me to say that this government has no jurisdic- Vion over foreign vessels fishing on the high [Mr. Chevrier.] seas. However, there is a convention among most of the countries interested in fishing in the northwest Atlantic, the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fish- eries, and the countries who subscribe to it set up by mutual agreement certain regula- tions as to net sizes and other conservation measures. The various countries concerned take the responsibility for enforcing these regulations as far as their nationals are concerned. I am answering this question off the cuff, and if my information is not complete, or is incorrect, I will add to the answer tomorrow. FINANCE LUMBER-REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST TARIFF INCREASE ON SOFTWOOD On the orders of the day: Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koo±enay Wesi): Mr. Speaker, with due decorum I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a protest from the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' asso- ciation, supported by the British Columbia interior lumber manufacturers' association, against a recent decision of the Canadian tariff board in appeal No. 446, which results in an increase in duty on softwood lumber imported into Canada from the United States from 71 per cent to 20 per cent? In view of the serious repercussions this decision will have on the lumber industry in British Columbia- Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has asked his question. He is now, apparently, about to make a statement on the subject. Mr. Herridge: I am just going to ask the question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider an immediate investigation into the situation and take action in the best interests of the lumber industry and the employees concerned? Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, representations, as I think they should be called rather than protests, have been received from the associa- tion with reference to this particular decision of the tariff board, and the matter is receiv- ing very close study. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ICELAND-EXTENsION OF FISHING LIMITS FOR FOREIGN TRAWLERS On the orders of the day: Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester): May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the recent threat by the Danish islands in the north Atlantic to follow the example of Iceland and extend their fishing limits to 12 miles, can the minister advise the house if the Canadian government recognizes the extension of the fishing limit to a 12-mile width of waters off their coasts, as announced by the govern- ment of Iceland? Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I will accept that ques- tion as notice. Mr. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which the minister may also take as notice. In view of the statement made in Halifax on Sunday, June 8, by the Minister of Fisheries to the effect that Canada would try to obtain a compromise arrange- ment concerning the 12-mile fishing limit at the next conference on the law of the sea, can the minister advise the house if the government has altered its so-called firm stand on a 12-mile limit to a compromise position on future negotiations? RUSSIA-OPERATION OF SHIPS OFF NEWFOUNDLAND On the orders of the day: Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister comment on the presence of Soviet ships operating off the banks of Newfoundland in a manner calculated to give rise to suspicion and anxiety on the part of the people of Newfoundland? Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. My col- league the Minister of National Defence has graciously undertaken to answer it. Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, it has been reported to me that Soviet vessels have been operating off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. These ships have been operating outside of Cana- dian territorial waters. I am sure the hon. member for Trinity-Conception noticed, as I did, the statement of the Russian minister of fisheries made in Halifax the other day to the effect that these Russian ships were carrying out scientific surveys of fish migra- tions in the area. I would suggest that the residents of Newfoundland should not be unduly exercised by this fishy business, as the area is patrolled by the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. [Later:1 Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo): May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence arising out of the reply Inquiries of the Ministry he gave to the hon. member for Trinity- Conception. Would the minister take steps to verify reports that these Russian trawlers operating on the banks of Newfoundland are totally blacked out at night and do not carry even the ordinary navigation lights, thereby constituting a menace to shipping operating on the banks? If the reports are verified, would he inquire as to why such a practice would be necessary for ships that are engaged merely in tracking fish migration? Mr. Pearkes: I would be pleased to get a report on that matter. LAOS, cAMBODIA, VIET NAM-sTATEMENT ON STATUS OF CONTROL COMMISSIONS On the orders of the day: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East asked me a question concerning the status of the inter- national commissions in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. With respect to the part of the question concerning Laos, may I say that in November, 1957, an agreement was reached between the royal Laotian government and the dissident Pathet Lao. This agreement pro- vided for integration of the Pathet Lao into the Laotian national community and also pro- vided for supplementary elections to be held in a few months' time to give representation in the national assembly to the Pathet Lao. These elections were held on May 4, 1958. During the past two months the royal Laotian government has twice requested the international commission to leave Laos after the May 4 elections. It expressed the view that these elections represented the final stage of the political settlement provided for in the cease-fire agreement on Laos which was signed at Geneva in 1954. It is also the Canadian government's view that, with the achievement of a political set- tlement in Laos and with. the fulfilment of the terms of the cease-fire agreement, the tasks of the international commission for supervision and control have come to an end. The Canadian government considers that the indefinite extension of international agencies of this kind after their tasks have been com- pleted will tend to bring the whole concept of international supervision into disrepute. For this general reason, and in support of a request of the royal Laotian government, the Canadian delegation to the international commission was instructed to introduce a resolution calling for the dissolution of the commission. The Indian and Polish delegations are opposed to dissolution, and as yet no final solution has been reached. JUNE 11, 1958 1037 HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry With respect to the international commis- sion in Viet Nam, the Canadian government considers that since a political settlement has not yet been reached in that country, the commission there still has a task to perform. We are therefore anxious to continue our participation in the work of that commission and thereby contribute to the peace and sta- bility of that area. With respect to Cambodia, more than two years ago, as the hon. member no doubt re- calls, the Canadian delegation to the commis- sion in Cambodia tabled a resolution calling for the dissolution of that commission which, in the opinion of the Canadian government, had completed its task. However, because this resolution was not supported by the Indian and Polish delegations but particularly, I am informed, because the royal Cambodian gov- ernment requested the commission to remain, no further action was taken at that time or has since been taken. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, in view of the situation in Cambodia which he has just described, he does not think a further attempt should be made toward the dissolution of the commission in that country? Perhaps he would be prepared to look at the matter and give us a statement later. Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, in reply, I should like to see the Laos situation dealt with first, but I will look into it. CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS BRITISH COLUMBIA-REPORTED POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVED SERVICE On the orders of the day: Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which perhaps could be taken as notice in his absence and answered when he returns. Has the Department of Transport received a report from Canadian Pacific Steamships relative to the operation of steam- ships between the mainland of British Colum- bia and Vancouver island to the effect that a more efficient and faster service between the two points is possible? If so, what plan does the department have for the institution of such a service? Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Nafional Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and see that it is brought to the attention of the minister concerned. [Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac).] LABOUR CONDITIONS ST. JOHNS, QUE.-REPORTED CESSATION OF OPER- ATIONS OF SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY On the orders of the day: Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to give the hon. lady notice of my intention to ask this question. Is the minister aware that the Singer Sewing Machine Company of St. Johns, Quebec, bas closed down its operations, and that as a result many persons are out of work? Has she any comment to make as to the reasons for the closing down of this plant? Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, that information bas not come to my desk as yet, but I rather fancy that would be under provincial juris- diction, would it not? UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STATEMENT ON BENEFIT PAYMENT FIGURES On the orders of the day: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question which was asked by the bon. mem- ber for Bonavista-Twillingate on June 2, as recorded at page 725 of Hansard. The unem- ployment insurance commission has just com- pleted a special survey made throughout Canada to obtain the number of active claim- ants for unemployment insurance benefits as of May 31, 1958. The total number of active claimants at that date was 550,959. Of this total there were 367,942 claimants for regular benefits and 183,017 claimants for seasonal benefits. These figures, I might add, compare with a total of 722,252 active claimants on April 30, 1958, comprising 495,382 regular benefit claimants and 226,870 seasonal benefit claimants. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin- gate, as he will recall, asked for the number of persons receiving benefits. Because of the varying frequency of payments-some weekly, some bi-monthly and some even less fre- quently in more remote areas-and because of the continuing turnover of those receiving benefit, it is much more difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of those receiving benefit than of those claiming benefit. Accordingly the figures assembled cover, as I have said, the numbers actively claiming benefits as at May 31, 1958. STATEMENT ON MONTHLY STATISTICS On the orders of the day: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to deal with the question concerning unemploy- ment raised by the hion. member for Essex East yesterday, as recorded at page 900 0f Hansard. The hion. member referred to the monthly labour force survey made by the dominion bureau of statistics. This survey is made regular1y during the week following the middle of each month. It requires one week for enumeration and two to three weeks to process the information obtained. The resuits are made available in the press release on the employment situation issued jointly by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics around the twentieth of the following month. This was the practice, I might add, which was followed by the previous governmefit, and it is being continued. NATIONAL DEFENCE NORAD-U.S. LAW RESPECTING COMMAND 0F NUCLEAR WEAPONS On the orders of the day: Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposi- tion): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if hie would care to comment on a report from Washington which appears in the press today to the eff ect that United States law specifically forbids any foreigner, which includes a Canadian, to command American nuclear weapons; and that as virtually all United States squadrons are armed with nuclear-tip air to air missiles Air Marshal Siemon, deputy commander of NORAD, could exercise no authority or control over United States aircraft under that command. Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that as the question appears to relate to a matter that is now under debate it could perhaps be more properly deait with in the course of that debate. HEALTH INSURANCE NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR TABLING 0F AGREEMENT On the«orders of the day: Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Eurgeo): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Wel- f are. Would the minister consider tabling at an early date a copy of the agreement recently signed with the province of New- foundland under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act? Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare>: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Inquiries of the Mi'nistry IRRIGATION SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS 0F DISCUSSIONS On the orders of the day: Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River): Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Has the aovernment now agreed to grant the Saskatchewan government a loan for the hydro power works on the South Saskatchewan river project? If not, what are the chances of the South Saskatchewan river project being started this year? Right Hon. J . G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the question of finance and assistance to the province in that direction is receiving consideration. The field of divergence between this government and the government of Saskatchewan is being narrowed, and my hope certainly is that we will be able to achieve a mneasure of agree- ment in connection with the question of finance which will enable a start to be made. AIR TRANSPORT T.C.A.-APPLICATION FOR FIFTH PREEDOM RIGETS IN U.S. On the orders of the day: Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier>: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minîster of Transport of which I have already sent notice. Perhaps the acting minister will take notice of it. Has an application been made for fifth freedom rights on behaif of Trans- Canada Air Lines at United States airports, and is the government contemplating renego- tiation of the air agreement between Canada and the United States thîs year? Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Na- tional Revenue): 1 will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker, and see that the minister is made aware of it. HIGHWAYS KENORA-MINAKI-INCLUSION IN ACCESS ROADS PROGRAM On the orders of the day: Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of which I gave notice yesterday. Did the province of Ontario apply to have its road project between Kenora and Minaki recognized for a f ederal contribu- tion under the access roads program to re- lieve winter unemployment announced by 1039JUNE Il. 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry the minister last session? If so, can the minister say why work came to a halt soon after March 31? Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, the road in question was part of many re- quests by the government of Ontario to the federal government under the roads to re- sources program. There has been no agree- ment between the province of Ontario and the federal government (a) as to the individ- ual roads that will be part of a general agreement or (b) as to the general terms of the agreement between the two govern- ments. Mr. Benidickson: May I address a sup- plementary question. There have been some press reports concerning a new policy with respect to roads to resources. On January 7 during the last session of the house the minister asked permission to have printed as an appendix to Hansard his letter to the premiers- Some hon. Members: Order. Mr. Benidickson: -in which he made an offer with respect to access roads of a rela- tively smaller nature than is indicated in the press releases. Would he tell the house the new policy that has been offered to the provinces? Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): I am very glad to be able to correct any false impres- sion of this nature. The original offer made on January 7 is still the same. The reaction of seven provinces has been enthusiastic and completely co-operative. The negotiations that are being carried on with the govern- ment of Ontario are very active both at the ministerial level and at the official level. As a matter of fact, the very fine mining and access roads program of the Ontario government has been an inspiration, I be- lieve, to all provinces in the matter of opening up resource areas. I think I have caught the main points of the hon. member's question. If not, I will answer further. HOUSE OF COMMONS REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING ELECTION PROMISES On the orders of the day: Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the words spoken by Professor D. W. Fox, the Ontario young Conservative, as reported in this morn- ing's Gazette by Mr. Blakely, to the effect that [Mr. Benidickson.] the only thing one has to do to be elected to office is to make as many promises as one can? Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): I am glad to see that my hon. friend is reading the proceedings of the young Conservative association. As an answer, I would suggest that he consult with his own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who made many promises which did not prove as effectual as the prophecy made by the gentle- man in question. DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF NEXT MEETING On the orders of the day: Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask the Prime Minister a question, now that he has mentioned promises. Mr. Speaker: Order. I think most hon. members will recognize that the last question was not one which was properly introduced. Perhaps we can offset the reply, which was in the same category, and not carry it any farther. Mr. Martin (Essex East): This is a promise of another character. May I ask the Prime Minister if, as a result of his luncheon yesterday with the premier of Ontario, he is in a position to tell us now when the next dominion-provincial conference will take place? Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): The answer to that question is simply this. I did not have luncheon yesterday with the premier of Ontario. PUBLIC SERVICE STATEMENT ON CIVIL SERVANTS RECEIVING SALARIES wITHOUT PERFORMING DUTIES On the orders of the day: Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State): In reply to the inquiry by the hon. member for Kootenay West on Friday last concerning certain civil servants receiving their salaries without performing any duties, may I say that I was in touch with the civil service commission and was nformed that the commission does not know of any such cases. I feel that the hon. member should be asked to supply the names of such civil servants and the departments in which they are employed, so that a further search can be made. Mr. Herridge: I shall be quite willing to do so. NATIONAL DEFENCE NoRAD-APPROVAL OF EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S. The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen- baker: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this bouse do approve the same. Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, during the remainder of the time that I have available to me I shall continue to answer the various questions which were asked during the debate yester- day. The Leader of the Opposition asked for information as to the principles and procedures under which our air force will operate under this plan, that is the NORAD plan.. He also asked various questions re- garding the system of command. The note on NORAD states quite clearly that the commander in chief, NORAD, will be responsible to the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States, who in turn are responsible to their respective governments. Then it goes on to say that he will operate within the concept of air defence approved by the appro- priate authorities of the two governments, who will bear in mind the objectives for the defence of the Canadian-United States regions of NATO. Then later in paragraph 6 it states: The plans and procedures to be followed by NORAD in wartime shall be formulated and approved in peacetime by appropriate national authorities and shall be capable of rapid linplemen- tation in an emergency. In paragraph 3 it defines "operational control". Since the Leader of the Opposition and I served during the first war this term "operational control" has been invented. It was not one we understood in those days long ago. I have therefore endeavoured, and perhaps it is wishful thinking, to put down in a very few sentences what I feel is the function of the headquarters of NORAD at Colorado Springs, both in peace and war. I hope I will not confuse the issue even further. In peacetime the function will be to develop plans and procedures to be used in war. These plans and procedures would be agreed upon in peacetime and be ready for im- mediate use in an emergency. I might add that these plans are being worked out, mod- ified and improved continuously. There is always a plan which could be put into effect, 57071-3-67 NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement but that may only be a temporary plan awaiting further modification and ultimate approval, we hope, by the governments con- cerned. These plans as submitted by the commander in chief of NORAD will be reviewed, amended and approved by the chiefs of staff of both countries. It will be a responsibility of the commander in chief of NORAD to formulate a general pattern of training and the general supervision of practice exercises in order to ensure the readiness of the forces and fa- cilities which may be available to him in time of emergency. In war it will be his responsibility to direct the air operations in accordance with the plans that have been agreed to in peacetime. Once the air battle is joined, NORAD will keep the subordinate commanders informed of the over-all air situation, and he will be in a position to reinforce threatened areas with any forces that might be available. He exercises that command, so far as Canada is concerned-again I have used the word "command", and I should have said opera- tional control. He exercises that operational control through the headquarters of the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. at St. Hubert. Perhaps a situation such as this might occur. Unidentified aircraft are located on the radar screen of the distant warning line. These aircraft are seen to be approaching Canada. It is then the responsibility of the officer commanding the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. to dispatch interceptors with the idea of identifying the planes. The radar screen, of course, could not give any definite identification. It would eventually be able to give some estimate of the number of tracks there were, or in other words the num- ber of aircraft which were approaching Canada. Assuming that these aircraft were a num- ber of enemy aircraft and that they had been identified as such by the aircraft sent up by the officer commanding at St. Hubert, the officer commanding at St. Hubert would then direct interceptors to engage the enemy, once it had been established that these air- craft were of hostile intent. At the same time the information reached the officer com- manding at St. Hubert the same information would have been passed to the commander in chief of NORAD. The commander in chief of NORAD might also be getting other radar recordings from other parts of the continent of North America. He would report those to the officer commanding the R.C.A.F. air defence force. If the number of hostile planes moving through Canadian air space ap- proaching the various targets were more JUNE 11, 1958 1041 HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement numerous than could be dealt with by the squadrons of the R.C.A.F. under the command of the air defence commander at St. Hubert, the commander in chief NORAD could and would send United States air force fighter squadrons to assist the R.C.A.F. in their task of intercepting these bombers. I see several ways in which this assistance might be given. The commander in chief NORAD might instruct the officer command- ing the R.C.A.F. at St. Hubert to direct all the Canadian planes against a certain group of hostile bombers which were attacking, let us say by way of illustration those which were moving down through the Mackenzie basin. As to another group which might at the same time be attacking across Labrador, the commander in chief at Colorado Springs could say that he would look after that group with United States air force squadrons. In such instance the R.C.A.F. commander would direct those planes which were per- haps originally going to engage the bombers over Labrador to divert and go to the Mac- kenzie valley. It must be remembered that from the time the interceptor takes off from its airport until it actually becomes ready for engagement, it is under constant direction from the control system of the Pinetree line which is directing that aircraft, so that it approaches and changes its route according to the changes of route taken by the hostile planes. Hence it is in constant touch with command headquarters at St. Hubert. Another situation might be such that the commander in chief of NORAD would say to the commander of the air defence command of the R.C.A.F. that NORAD would place a certain number of specified squadrons un- der the operational control of the commander of the air defence command at St. Hubert. In other words he would make available to the commander of the R.C.A.F. certain United States squadrons which could be em- ployed as and how the commander of the R.C.A.F. saw fit. That seems to me to be the sort of control which is exercised by the NORAD comman- der during an engagement. It should be appreciated that the R.C.A.F. squadrons are, as it were, front line troops. They are the first which would engage any hostile bombers coming over Canadian airways, and they would be assisted by the United States air force squadrons if the task before them was greater than they were able to carry out. Mr. Pearson: May I ask the minister a question? Mr. Pearkes: Might I suggest that as a number of questions have been asked, I might [Mr. Pearkes.] be given an opportunity to answer the ques- tions which were asked yesterday. Then if I have time I shall be only too pleased to endeavour to answer any others. I do not know whether that statement has cleared up the situation but I have tried to explain it in as simple language as possible, in the way I sec that operation being carried out. Another question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition was with regard to the effectiveness of NORAD. He asked me if I would deny certain press reports and rumours which had been spread indicating that perhaps in some quarters there was not at NORAD the degree of co-operation which is considered to be desirable. Of course I am not in a position to report directly on the behaviour of the commanders of another country. However, I should like to report emphatically and definitely that when General Partridge was here he was loud in his praise of the ability, talents and conscientiousness of Air Marshal Slemon, who is his deputy there. Furthermore, Air Marshal Slemon spoke in enthusiastic terms with regard to the co-operation he had re- ceived from the various members of the staff at NORAD. He said that when General Partridge was away he was in supreme com- mand, and his authority was recognized and accepted without question. He went on to say that he received full co-operation from the subordinates who would under those cir- cumstances be under him. I recall very clearly a remark he made. He said, "These are dedicated men who are working for the defence of the North Ameri- can continent". He went on and used these particular words: "They no longer regard themselves either as Americans or Canadians, as army, air force, navy or marine officers. With that evidence I feel that it is possible for me to deny the suggestions which have been made that NORAD is not working effectively. If we have had reason to com- municate with NORAD officially or with General Partridge on a more personal basis we have always received immediate and courteous replies. I have absolutely no rea-. son to believe that NORAD is not function- ing effectively. The hon. member for Essex East asked whether it was not true that the United States will concentrate on missiles and that manned aircraft will be operated by Canadians only. Of course that is not true; the Americans are manning piloted aircraft today which, if an emergency arose, would be available to assist the Royal Canadian Air Force, and as far as I know it is the intention of the United States to continue to man piloted interceptors for a long time to come. They are, of course, carrying out work on research and actually have in operation certain mis- siles which would be available in a battle for the protection of the North American continent. Canada is also carrying out in- vestigations and is training men in the use of missiles, which perhaps in the not too distant future may be required to supplement the defence of our country. The hon. member for Essex East next asked if it were not true that the service chiefs could pull units out of NORAD when they saw fit. Again the answer is in the negative. As will be seen in the note it says that North American air defence command will include certain combat units and individuals as are specifically allocated by the two govern- ments. No service chief can withdraw a unit which has been definitely allocated to a certain command by a government. The next question was whether Canada will continue to contribute its air division to NATO forces in Europe. Of course we are going to continue to have those forces in Europe, and no doubt the house will recall that when the president of the West German republic was here recently the Prime Minister gave an emphatic promise that as long as Cana- dian forces were required in Europe they would remain there. At page 772 of Hansard for June 2, 1958, the Prime Minister used the following words: I wish to make It clear that whatever threats may be made against those nations which believe in the mission of NATO and the necessity for its continuance, Canada will maintain forces in Europe as long as international disquiet and justifiable fears require Canadian participation. I merely quote that as the most recent statement on this subject, and I am sure the hon. member did not really believe it was likely that the Canadian government would withdraw those troops just because we were making an even greater effort to provide for the security of this continent. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Withdraw or reduce. Mr. Pearkes: Withdraw or reduce. The next point with which I would like to deal is the question of timing. Suggestions have been made in this house that we should not have acted as we did last summer with respect to this headquarters, be it of a tem- porary or a permanent nature; and I always understood that it would be of a temporary nature until the formal notes had established it. I did not emphasize that position at the time; perhaps I should have done, but I took it for granted that it would be considered as a temporary appointment until such time as it was confirmed in the formal note. 57071-3-67J JUNE 11, 1958 NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement The question was, should we have acted then or should we have waited until the formal note had been agreed to by both governments and had been discussed here in parliament? We did gain ten months because, as experience has shown, the formal note was only recently received and has been discussed in parliament yesterday and today at really the first opportunity which has been available during this session. The note was not ready during the last session of parlia- ment. It may be said that it should have been done more quickly, but it was not done more quickly and I do not know how it could have been done more quickly. Should we have waited? I would like to ask hon. members to consider the situation as it was last summer. Russia had refused to accept the resolution on disarmament or the limitation of arms which had been en- dorsed by a very large number of the western nations. Russia had walked out of the disarmament conference, and at that time had just launched its first earth satellite. There was a good deal of concern, not only on this continent but in Europe, and there was a speeding up of defensive arrangements. Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to inform the minister his time has expired. Some hon. Members: Continue. Mr. Speaker: Does the house give unan- imous consent that the hon. minister may proceed? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Pearkes: I shall finish in just a sentence or so, Mr. Speaker. At that time there was great concern, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom came out to discuss the international situation with the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. I submit that it was only prudent for this government to press on as quickly as possible, have the two commanders con- cerned get together, set up their staffs and bring up to date a plan for the defence of this continent. It is my opinion that it would have been unwise to have delayed longer and to have waited, in the circumstances which existed in the world a year ago, until several months later when the formal notes might have been presented. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I think the hon. gentleman will agree there was no suggestion of that. Mr. Pearkes: Certainly it was my under- standing that the suggestion has been that we should not have moved as quickly as we did. Mr. Martin (Essex East): No one suggested that. HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Mr. Pearkes: I am positive. Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): Your speech was the one that suggested it. Mr. Pearkes: Well, I am saying that the world situation as it existed a year ago fully justified the government in taking that ac- tion, and I am delighted that we have had the benefit of ten months of very productive work at the headquarters of NORAD. Mr. Pearson: I wonder whether before the minister takes his place he would be able to throw any ligh. on the question I addressed to the Prime Minister on the orders of the day, regarding the inability of the Canadian deputy commander of NORAD to exercise any control or authority, operational or otherwise, over American squadrons carrying nuclear-tipped missiles? Mr. Pearkes: I have not read the report. I have not had the opportunity of getting any advice from elsewhere, but I can only give the hon. gentleman my personal inter- pretation of what it might mean. I do not regard the command of NORAD as having actual command over either United States or Canadian units. The actual exercise of executive command is carried out by subordinate commanders, the squadron leaders. My interpretation of the statement about which the Leader of the Opposition has informed the house today would be that the Americans consider that NORAD head- quarters is given directional and operational control over the units of the United States air force which are commanded by Ameri- can officers. I would interpret that state- ment as not affecting the position of Air Marshal Slemon, in that he is in the nature of being a senior officer at a very high com- mand, and that he is giving direction to the officers in actual executive command of the various units. However, I should like to have the time to explore the situation and find out about it more definitely, because it has not been brought to my attention. Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this im- portant debate I think it is now abundantly clear that the official opposition attitude in insisting that intergovernmental agreements or treaties be brought to the house and debated was the right one, and I am glad the Prime Minister, with his ear to the ground, took notice of that attitude, reversed a previous decision and granted us this dis- cussion. We have had the advantage in the last day or so of getting some answers to many of our questions. I will not be so unkind as to use the words which appeared in a Canadian Press dispatch under the dateline [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] Ottawa, May 30 to the following effect: "The flow of conflicting statements on NORAD continued unabated today". At least we have had the advantage of hearing from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, and that is all to the good. I should like to make a few general state- ments and then ask what I hope will be a few pointed and intelligent questions to which I hope answers will be given in due course. It seems that in these days when new weapons and different tactics impose a reappraisal of our national defence plans there can be little argument against the contention that this country has a need for an effective defensive alliance. We can agree among ourselves that democratic govern- ments seem to avoid making choices except when the danger is real and apparent, but the last two wars show that when survival is at stake nations, in spite of jealously guarding their sovereignty, can co-operate quickly, even though the burden may not be shared equitably by each nation. Canada is certainly one of the two NATO nations which have financed their own military needs and supplied effective aid to their NATO partners, and I say that Canada has ex- ercised its sovereignty in a very mature way rather than surrendered it. Canada has always been very careful to protect its independent status vis-à-vis her powerful and friendly next door neighbour to the south. In fact, to defend its sover- eignty on Canadian soil Canada bas been prepared to make expenditures for Canadian defence installations which it might scarcely have contemplated except for the urgent interest of the United States. Now, what is the relative position of NORAD to NATO? Is there any legal connection between the two? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that NORAD is simply an extension of the NATO pact, and that parliament approved the NATO pact years ago. Is there any legal connec- tion between the two organizations? If there is, it seems to me that any legalistic connection between NORAD and NATO was nullified about two weeks ago when the secretary general of NATO, Mr. Spaak, said at a press conference in Ottawa: NORAD is not a part of NATO, although we are very interested in it. It is not under the command of NATO. And when some correspondent questioned him further on the point and asked him whether he would wish it part of NATO, he replied: Nobody asked for that. It is quite another ques- tion. NORAD has never been referred to or discussed in NATO. 1044 It seems ta me, ta summarize the situatian, that NORAD reports anly ta Ottawa and ta Washingtan, and that its tie with NATO is anly an undertaking ta keep NATO informed. What is the actual situatian? If I am right in my interpretation it seems that NORAD, through the standing military group, advises NATO only far the purpases of planning. Operatianally NORAD is under direct United States and Canadian cantral, and anly under their contrai. The com- mander in chief, General Partridge a! the United States and his deputy, Air Marshal Slemon o! the R.C.A.F., repart ta their governments jointly. General Partridge is responsible ta bath gavernments for any major decisians. And s0 I camne ta my first question, which is this. In the absence o! General Partridge -let us suppose he should be sick--daes Air Marshal Slemon repart ta bath gavern- ments, and is hie responsible for any major decisians. It this the intention of the govern- ment of Canada? The NORAD agreement places the R.C.A.F. continental defence farces under American aperational commiand in the event o! war. I have another question. Wiil the United States commander af NORAD have autharity ta arder the R.C.A.F. ta shoot down planes which the commander cansiders hostile, with- aut first clearing his order with the Canadian government? To my way of thinking the most important single element in NATO's de! ensive strength, at least until this timne, undoubtedly has been the United States strategic air force. Althaugh NATO's defence farces would be meaningless without this de- terrent in the background there has been no sharing by the United States of its respan- sibility for or contrai o! this key military power. What about the question of civilian contrai? The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that NORAD daes not deny the "primacy o! -civilian authority". Section 1 of the agree- ment states that the twa governments will approve "a concept of air defence"~. Section 6 o! the agreement states: The plans and procedures ta be fallawed by NORAD in wartime shall be formulated and approved in peacetimne by apprapriate national authorities and shall be capable of rapid imple- mentation In an emergency. The Secretary o! State for External Aiffairs told parliament that the two governments had approved the detailed ternis of reference, and thase latter words are !aund in section 7 o! the agreement; but hie went on ta say that in the interests of national securîty he could not disclose them. Paragraph 3,1if I may call it NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement sa, af the preamble which appears on page 1 of the capy of the agreement which 1 have refers ta "a demand for rapid decision ta keep pace with the speed and tempo af technalagical developments" and says that, "ta achieve ef- fectiveness, defensive aperatians must com- mence as early as passible and enemny forces must be kept constantly engaged". 1 suppose the idea is ta stop an enemy in the f ar north if that be possible. The question that cames ta my mind is this. In the event of attack would there be time for cansultation bef are countermeasures were taken? Another question is, has General Partridge been given autharity ta shoot first and ask permission later fram Washington and Ottawa? If so, where is this shown in the agreement? Accarding ta the remarks made by the Minister a! National Defence last evening no squadrans have yet been assigned or com- mitted ta NORAD; and I ask the question, if the agreement is ta have any value, why nat? Is the government holding back until parlia- ment has approved this agreement? After ail, up until a week ago the government had no intention of submittîng the agreement ta this hause for discussion. Why is this? How can NORAD be effective without aur participa- tion? What is the purpose of this agreement if we do not participate? When General Partridge, the commander in chief of NORAD, was in Ottawa same ten days ago no oppartunity was gîven hon. mem- bers ta hear his views in a closed sessian. When General Mantgomery, General Narstad and General Gruenther came ta Ottawa this op- partunity was provided. Why the mystery? Why was no oppartunity given hon. memnbers ta hear the views af General Partridge? I think it is abviaus that air defence for North America must be provided by the United States air farce and the Rayai Cana- dian Air Force, and nat by NATO. It is quite understandable that the United States wants ta keep NORAD outside the authority of NATO in the interests a! military efficiency, rapid decision and speed af implementation. The government might consider sacrifices of nation.al sovereignty for NATO's sake because Canada believes in callective security with several ather nations such as those in NATO, but the gavernment shauld carefully consider the surrender o! any sovereignty in a twa- way partnership with the United States. There is a great difference in power between the two cauntries, and this might in turn react ta Canada's disadvantage in arriving at a joint NORAD decision. I would like ta know how much authority the Canadian gavernment has conceded ta the JUNE 11, 1958 1045 HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement United States commander of NORAD. Speak- ing in the House of Commons on May 19 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the interests of national security prevented him revealing the terms of refer- ence for General Partridge on which Ottawa and Washington had agreed. It might be better if these terms of reference were made public. I do not imagine they would startle the mentality of any enemy general consider- ing what we may say in this debate, and it might be a good thing for Canadians to know where we stand in the whole picture of NORAD. The question of sovereignty is important because it touches on our feelings as a devel- oping nation. We have not had full sovereignty for so long that we can afford to give it away in bits and pieces. While the military realities are such that we depend on the United States, this should not obscure the fact that the forms of sovereignty need to be observed if we care to respect our own feel- ings of nationhood. We have new air prob- lems with the United States, and it is important for us to again assert our sov- ereignty over the air, the water and the Arctic. In my opinion the Prime Minister should clarify that NORAD is a defensive and not an offensive mechanism. Another important question I wish to ask is this. Can an armed United States bomber fly in Canadian air space on the way to the Soviet frontier without our specific consent? If the answer is yes then there must be an agreement with the United States, because NORAD does not cover this eventuality. Basically speaking, political sovereignty today almost appears to be what the great powers tolerate. It is one thing to be part of a group of nations for the purpose of collec- tive security and defence, and indeed we are happy to be part of NATO; but it is quite a different thing to enter into a bilateral agreement with our neighbour to the south in which we are only a junior partner. Although the United States is bound as the strong force to direct operations, the facts remain that Canada occupies the northern part of the North American continent, that Canada is now sandwiched in between two great powers, Russia and the United States, and that there is a possibility of our country becoming a second Belgium. Being in posses- sion of our sovereignty we are the people with the say-so about our own territory. The United States would not tolerate any invasion of their sovereignty by us, and I think it is important that Washington remember that on the northern part of this continent it is a matter of Canadian sovereignty. Actually it is extremely important for us to examine and demand the reasons for this [Mr. Macnaughton.] joint NORAD policy. If I may say so, it would be very good for the people of the United States, too. We should see to it that the plans of both countries are reasonable. We have a contribution to make in that respect. Ultimately the larger burden of defence is on the United States, but we as Canadians have the right to expect that our views will be listened to concerning the risks the United States runs in the name of defence, for those risks may become our liabilities. Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like first of all to make a comment or two on an interjection made yesterday by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) as shown on page 1022 of Hansard. In order to be cor- rect I will read what he said in commenting upon the remarks of the bon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). He used these words: -I do not mind his reading his speech, but when he reads a speech by the C.C.F. ghost writer, David Lewis, that is another question. And I see it is going to corne in instalnents. The other speakers are going to give David Lewis part two- At that point apparently he was interrupted by the hon. member for Kootenay West. An hon. Member: He meant Russ Bell. Mr. Howard: I am not sure what be meant but that is what he said. If hon. members on the other side say things they do not mean, it is far beyond my ability to deal with them. Whether he meant Russ Bell or David Lewis is inmaterial. Contrary to what he may be accustomed to in the Conservative party, we in the C.C.F. do not employ other people to write our speeches. He may consider that the reading of written speeches is a com- municable disease but those of us over here have been inoculated with a vaccine of in- telligence and hard work. Consequently every C.C.F. member who rises to speak in the house presents his own arguments as prepared by himself. We not only prepare our own speeches but we do not act like we are reading the script of a radio opera when we present them to the house. When we make our speeches we deliver them as well as we possibly can with- out sticking too closely to notes. I thought for a minute you were going to interrupt, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): I was going to interrupt the hon. member and say that we are not discussing the method of giving speeches but the motion that is before the house. Mr. Howard: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your remarks but inas- much as what I said was related to the debate I thought I would prepare the way by JUNE 1 saying that neither David Lewis nor Russ Bell had anything to do with the preparation of this speech. However, I will say that I got a great deal of help in preparing my remarks, and whenever that happens I always give due credit to the individual or individuals who have assisted me. I am honest enough to admit it. We are thankful for the opportunity to participate in a debate of this nature for the purpose of attempting to understand the implications and obligations of NORAD. In the discussions that have taken place in the house and outside it prior to this motion being presented it has been evident that there was a great deal of conflict in the minds of bon. members, newspaper men and the general public. There was a general state of confu- sion and bewilderment as to just what NORAD meant and how it would apply. There was no genuinely concrete understanding of NORAD, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen- baker), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) have at one time or another participated in contributing to the confusion that existed prior to the motion being presented. We hoped that when the mover of the motion introduced it there would be some elucidation with respect to NORAD. We hope that if other government speakers participate in the debate there will be further elucida- tion on their part as to what NORAD means. I must say, however, that I was disappointed with the Prime Minister's remarks. The un- derstanding we have now is not much better than we had before. I hope that this situa- tion will be cleared up later in the debate. So far we have seen the understanding of NORAD degenerate from a paradoxical per- plexity to a state of deliberate and apparently organized confusion. In my opinion the Prime Minister, with all the legalistic training he has at his command, did nothing but be- wilder the house by attempting to stretch the NATO agreement to justify some previous statements. I do not intend to deal with that because I think that the Leader of the Oppo- sition (Mr. Pearson), even though he does not have NORAD or SAC under his com- mand, did quite an effective job in shooting the Prime Minister down in flames so far as this matter is concerned. I come to something now that has been prepared for me by somebody else. I must confess I could not have prepared it myself because it is too contradictory. The ghost writers here are the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence and evidence of their kindness towards me can be found in Hansard of yesterday. I should like to make reference first to what is known as 1, 1958 1047 NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement the plan of NORAD. On page 995 of Hansard for yesterday we find the Prime Minister had this to say: When you look at the plan, and when you see it again in detail in this report to which I have made reference, namely, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1957, you realize how difficult it is to understand why there should be so much said about a matter such as this. On the same page he went on to say: -this agreement represents the culmination of negotiations carried on by the previous government. The reference to culmination would indi- cate that this is the highest point to which these discussions led and that the agreement tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is it. It can go no farther. It is all inclusive and all we have to do is look at it and we will understand completely what NORAD means. With reference to the action of the government shortly after taking office the Prime Minister went on to say, as found on page 995: When we took office the government came to the conclusion that this integration of operational con- trol of our air defence was important and should no longer be delayed, and authorized the establish- ment of the joint NORAD headquarters on a pro- visional basis pending the working out of some detailed minor termas of agreement between our governments. Obviously the agreement that has been tabled represents the detailed minor terms of agreement to which the Prime Minister made reference, the implication being that there are many more things to come, and in the light of what we have heard so far from the government benches there certainly is, in our opinion, quite a bit more to come. The Minister of National Defence also made some reference to this plan at page 1028 of Hansard for June 10, 1958. Apparently this was in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked whether there was a master plan drawn up during the two days when General PaMridge was visiting Canada. Plans for the defence of this country- complicated plans such as those which must be eventually completed-cannot be drawn up in a few hours. I explained that they were preliminary discussions leading up to a plan which is con- tinually being evolved. We have the Prime Minister saying there is a plan. Then, we have him saying, no, there is no plan; these are just some minor details of the agreement. The Minister of National Defence said at one stage that there were a number of plans, and then said, no, there was not. He said we are still consult- ing about it and eventually we hope to have some sort of a plan. I do not know whether or not there is a plan, and I am sure many hon. members on the government benches are not too sure just where we stand on this HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement particular issue. We would be in a much better position if the statements emanating from the government benches were con- sistent and not contradictory. We would have an idea of just where we are going on this particular item. There is another reference to this plan that I should like to quote. At page 1029 of Hansard, the Minister of National Defence is apparently referring to a question by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and said: The hon. member who bas just sat down wanted to know why we did not bring this note before the bouse last October. He gave the answer him- self-the note had not been completed, it had not been worked out, and what is the use of bringing a half-baked scheme before parliament and taking up the time of the house before it is completed? Apparently the reference was to some half-baked scheme the Liberal party had in mind but which had not reached a state of culmination yet, as the Prime Minister put it. If what we have before us is anything more than a half-baked scheme, then I do not know what it is. It is not only half- baked, it is still in the raw state. We are being asked to swallow this concoction with- out any idea what it is. We have the Prime Minister substantiating our claim it is a half-baked scheme, as the Minister of Na- tional Defence indicated to us it was. Mr. Palleti: Certainly, the hon. member would recognize one. Mr. Howard: I do not mind the interrup- tions if they are made loudly enough for us to hear. Mr. Palleit: I merely submitted to the hon. member that he would be able to recognize any sort of half-baked scheme. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): If the hon. member is asking a question he should ask the hon. member who has the floor whether or not he will accept the question. Mr. Howard: At page 993 of Hansard, near the bottom of the page, we have the Prime Minister admitting that this document which was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is nothing more than a half-baked scheme because he said: Indeed, on March 11, 1957, 40 copies of a submis- sion to the cabinet committee on defence were approved by the Minister of National Defence and forwarded to the secretary of the cabinet defence committee for inclusion on the agenda of the meet- ing of that committee to be held on Friday, March 15. No action was taken thereon. The agreement into which we have entered represents, in almost complete measure-when I say almost complete measure there are slight deviations in terminology and in routine matters-that which had been, to all intents and purposes, agreed upon by the former minister of national defence on behalf of the then government. [Mr. Howard.] In March, 1957, this half-baked scheme had been prepared. There was a slight change in terminology, and then that self- same half-baked scheme is presented to this house for acceptance. Let us get back to NORAD and NATO. An hon. Member: Yes. Mr. Howard: Yes, you would like to do that I am sure. An hon. Member: You wrote that part yourself. Mr. Howard: My hearing aid must be turned down because I cannot hear these interruptions. If it is the intention of the government to have this half-baked scheme as part of NATO, which apparently they indicate is desirable, but other than in the straight reportorial fashion that NORAD reports to NATO-I do not know in what fashion they do that-then, we are going to give you every opportunity to make such an arrangement. Instead of the government asking us to buy a pig in a poke, which is what they are doing at the moment, we hope the government will exhibit sincerity-not that they have not done so in the past-by indicating support for the following amend- ment: That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words: And in the opinion of this house consideration of the interests of collective security and the prin- ciples of the United Nations make it advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): I do not believe this amendment is relative, but I should like permission of the house to leave that decision for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Howard: Yes, that is agreed. I have completed my remarks. Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secreiary of Siale for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of traversing the ground that was covered so completely and, may I say, so clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen- baker) with respect to the question of the relationship of NORAD to NATO. I made a statement in this house on May 19 to the effect that I consider NORAD an amplifica- tion of and extension under NATO. I must say very faithfully that nothing I have heard in this debate has changed my mind with respect to the validity of that statement. I must say very frankly that I was sur- prised, and indeed astonished, by the observa- tions made in the debate last evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he brought into this house the name of Mr. Spaak. I regret very much that the name of JUNE 11, 1958 this distinguisbed leader of the west, the secretary general of NATO, bas been brought into this political debate. Wberein did the surprise and astonishment that I experienced arise? The Leader of tbe Opposition read from what he told us was a transcript taken from a tape recording of the press conference that Mr. Spaak beld when be was here. The extract taken from that press conference and the observations of Mr. Spaak read as follows: Q. Mr. Spaak, you said juat now that NATO was- I cannot make out the word. -looking with lnterest at NORAD. Do you con- sider NORAD part of NATO? A. No, it is not under the command of NATO. Speaking for myself, as that was uttered by the Leader of the Opposition I was left with the impression that Mr. Spaak had said it was not part of NATO; but if you read as is printed in Hansard these words, "No, it is not under the command of NATO", tbat is something different frorn the impression tbat was left. Some of us did not have the opportunity ta, see the manuscript ta wbich the Leader of the Opposition referred. But now that the name of Mr. Spaak bas been brought into this debate, I can say that be bimself personally told me that be got rather mixed up in the press interview. He did make at least two subsequent statements that qualified the impression that was made in the press conference. I am confident that the Leader of the Opposition must bave known of the qualification. I could refer ta a meeting we botb attended. Altbough Mr. Spaak made the qualification in French, I arn sure the French of the Leader af the Opposition is better than mine but I under- stood that he was qualifying bis statement on tbat particular occasion. But I go ta the public press. I am reading an excerpt from a clipping fromn the Halifax Chronicle Herald that appeared on June 4. Mr. Spaak is quoted and the remarks are in quotation marks: NORAD is not the direct concern of the NATO authorities in Paris as SACEUR, SACLANT and the Channel command are- This government bas neyer clairned that NORAD was a command of NATO. We agree with that statement. But then be goes on ta say this: -but the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group and the military committee- The two committees senior ta NORAD under NATO, under the NATO council. -through the Canada-U.S. regional planning group and studied there- Tbe Canada-United States regional plan- ning group is an integral-as I said on NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement May 19 in this house--or an integrated organization within NATO. It is organic and it bas definite responsibilities under the NATO general organization. But I repeat that part again: -but the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group and the military committee through the Canada-U.S. reglonal planning group and studled there- It is flot just have been inforrned; not just have been reported-conments were made in the bouse on the word "linformed"-they are studied there. -thus supplying a base for co-ordination between the plans made by the supreme commandera directly under the standing group and the plans of NORAD. Mr. Speaker, if they are studied in the standing group and they do flot seern to fit into the general over-ail defence plans and defensive plans, retallatory plans of NATO, then there will be discussion of them witb the members of the Canada-United States regional planning group. It is in this context theref are that NORAD's role in the general framework of the over-ail defence of the North Atlantic treaty area can be justified. This particular group, the Canada-United States regional planning group, is made up of the chiefs of staff of the United States and the cbiefs of staff of Canada or, ta, give tbem, their tecbnical tities or designations, the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff 0f tbe United States. That personnel is identical with tbe personnel of the group also mentioned in the note, the group ta, whose component parts tbe com- mander in cbief of NORAD is responsible. Last evening the Leader of tbe Opposition stated that the commander in chief of NORAD would bave a dual responsibility. I do not tbink of it in that way. He will be respon- sible ta the joint cbiefs of staff of tbe United States and, flot or,-studying together, working together-the cbiefs of staff com- mittee of Canada. I corne back ta this point that was referred ta by the last speaker wba said that be would like ta be satisfied about political con- trol. I am not going ta repeat wbat I said in the bouse on May 19 wben I traced tbe political responsibility of the commander in chie! of NORAD. He reports ta this joint group, tbe same personnel wbo are on tbis planning group, an organie part of NATO. Tben tbey are responsible ta, tbeir two gov- ernments. Tbhey must review sucb proposais and the gavernments will be bound ta ac- cept, and af course accept readily, the re- sponsibility af examining the proposais that are put up ta tbern caupled witb recommen- dations and confirmation that those are mili- tarily acceptable proposais. There is a line of political responsibility. Also the ternis of NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement reference which are mentioned in the note must be prepared with the concurrence of the governments. Also with respect to the plans or procedures-and those are strictly military, I am informed; I have not seen them-they must be acceptable to the na- tional authorities. The question with respect to sovereignty was raised this afternoon. I put the matter this way, Mr. Speaker. It is very simple. If I enter into a -contract with, let us say, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in so far as I restrict or limit my course of action to any particular degree, I am bound. If that is said to be loss of personal freedom, I would dispute that contention. I go to other treaties; I mention other treaties. I mention entering into a treaty involving abrogation or even surrender of sovereignty. I go to the North Atlantic Treaty which was approved, as we have been told on several occasions, in this house. I might be able to accept the proposition that there has perhaps been a temporary delegation of sovereignty. If that could be validated, then I would say it is undoubtedly justified, having regard to the military danger in which we find ourselves. In his speech last night reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition to the question of consultation. He remarked that he was very happy to note that continuous consultation should take place. This was emphasized in the note between Canada and the United States. Over the years there has been set up machinery and procedures for consultation. The Leader of the Opposi- tion would well know of the accuracy of that particular observation on my part. I agree with what has been said here that the establishment of NATO makes political con- sultation between the two countries much more necessary. And that is why we were happy in our negotations with the state de- partment to find that they were eager- not only willing, but eager-to emphasize this point and this is evidence of continued and full co-operation. The emphasis is to be found in these words contained in the note as follows: The two governments consider that the establish- ment of integrated air defence arrangements of the nature described increases the importance of the fullest possible consultation between the two governments on all matters affecting the joint defence of North America, and that defence co-operation between them can be worked out on a mutually satisfactory basis only If such consulta- tion is regularly and consistently undertaken. I would say, however, that we do not pro- pose to set up new machinery merely for the sake of doing so, but that if we find our present machinery-and I think now of the joint defence board and other organizations [Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac).] in addition to our normal diplomatic com- munications-is not sufficient to provide the proper machinery for consultation, then we will endeavour to improve what we have or will even look at the possibility of making changes. Let me assure the house, as I did on May 19 last, that in both Ottawa and Washington there exists determination to ensure that such consultation will be carried out and that the procedures and methods of integration be- tween our two countries, not only in respect of NORAD but also in respect of other facets of continental military defence, will be fully and frankly discussed. This afternoon a question was raised with respect to the powers and responsibilities of the deputy commander in chief of NORAD. I have consulted with my colleague, the Min- ister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), and he confirms the information I am about to give. I do think, incidentally, that this in- formation is quite clear in the note; in the absence of the commander in chief the deputy commander will assume his powers and his responsibilities. It is stated very clearly in the note that in the absence of the com- mander in chief, NORAD, command passes to the deputy commander, and there are no reservations in this very positive and cate- gorical statement. As the Minister of National Defence in- dicated last night, the commander in chief, NORAD, has been away on many occasions and the minister stated today that the deputy commander, Air Vice Marshal Slemon, has been recognized by his colleagues as full com- mander on such occasions. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) last evening indicated that in his view NORAD really is not an agreement at all, and I would like to quote briefly from page 1027 of Hansard for June 10, as follows: The agreement is not an elaborate one; in fact it is not an agreement at all. The material before us does not represent an agreement, it represents an agreement to agree on something. It is no more than that. In reply to that, I would say to this house that all one bas to do is to read carefully the articles to be found on pages 3 and 4 of the note. I am not going to examine the details at this moment and thereby take up the time of the house but I would just mention that in articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 we find the word "will" and we find the word "must", which is even stronger when used in that context. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East last evening and at that time I had on my desk a copy of the North Atlantic treaty. Here is the article which provides for the machinery for defence HOUSE OF COMMONS1050 JUNE 11. 1958 under NATO, and 1 am referring to page 13, including even the Canadian-United States regional planning group. Article 3 states as f ollows: In order more effectively to achieve the objec- tives of this treaty, the parties. separately and jointly, by means of contlnuous and effective self- help and mutual aid. wlU maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to reslst armed attack. There is nothing there about SACLANT or committees or SACEUR or anything e] se, and indeed the note which has been presented to the house is much more specifie and sets out much more detail than the proposals aut- lined in the North Atlantic treaty. I would lUke to conclude by reminding the house that having regard to the organhc na- ture of the Canadian-United States regional planning group and, with the same persannel as the joint chiefs of staff to whom the com- mander in chief of NORAD is responsible, I believe we can say that this is an amplifica- tion and an extension of NATO. I would like to express the hope that we will have a unanimous endorsation of this proposal by this house. The proposal embodied in the note provides for the effective defence of Canada under a single command which, it has beeti demonstrated to us by our military advisers, is znuch more effective as a means to meet the needs of the day and the possible dangers with which we may be faced where !i- mediate action within minutes or even sec- onds, is of the utmost importance. The proposai also provides for the more effective co-ordination. of the two air forces than had been possible up to August 1, 1957. 1 would ýalso remind the house that the military authority under this proposaI is subi ect to civilian control and that NORAD is part of the defences 0f which we find the apex in the strategic force and, in NATO, the defence of the west against possible nuclear war. Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): And that, Mr. Speaker, is the speech of Lhe Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), on perhaps one of the most important issues ever to come before this House of Commons. Here we have a treaty between Canada and the United States-a solitary foreign power--dealing fundamentally with the defence of Canada in the event of ag- gression and the placement of a major part of our armed forces under the ultimate con- trol of that foreign power. And that is the speech of the Secretary of State for External Aff airs on this subi ect. It is almost incon- ceivable that that is ail the Secretary of State for External Aff airs has to tell this House of Commons. Priority was given to trying to explain away a very definite statement made by Mr. NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Spaak. It was flot quite fair in my estima- tion, at least, for the hon, gentleman, perhaps flot intentionally, to cast a slur upon hon. members who may have quoted that esteemed authority. It is only correct that they should have quoted him, because, after ail, he is the secretary general of NATO and perhaps the highest authority who could be quoted in the circumstances with respect to a treaty which, the government maintains, is an in- tegral part of NATO itself. I was most interested to read back on May 20 in various newspapers across the country a statement by a Canadian Press staff writer to the effect that the Canada-United States agreement on the air defence of North America must rank as one of the fuzziest international documents of recent times. That certainly was my impression at the time, and I know that everyone in this chamber had a heartfelt hope that when this matter finally came up for discussion the fuzziness would he cleared away and that a plain explanation would be given with regard to this treaty and the principles of its application. Mr. Speaker, one can only speak for one- self, but I wish to state that in my estimation the entire situation stili seems to be in a welter of confusion and contradiction; even the statements made by hon. members on the government side during this debate have done nothing to clear up the discrepancies. I cannot reconcile the statements made in the past by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). They have not yet been explained. Government speakers have been endeavour- ing to argue-or make it clear as far as they can, I suppose-that NORAD is an emanation of NATO and that political approval of NORAD therefore flows directly from ap- proval of NATO. The Prime Minister had this to say on December 21, as reported page .2721 of Hansard: I want to re-emphasize what I pointed out there, and it was accepted as a fact, that these integrated forces are an integral part of the NATO mlltary structure In the Canada-United States region. It was not so many days after the Prime Minister made that statement that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), on January 4, asked a question of the Minister of National Defence which is to be found on page 2865 of Hansard of that date. He asked a question as follows: Is it the intention of the government, when agree- ment has been reached with the United States on the polîtical arrangements coverlng the defence organization, to submit that political agreement to the NATO council for discussion with the NATO partners Ini the hope, perhaps, that an agreement of this klnd can be made an integral part of the NATO organization? HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement To that question the Minister of National Defence made the reply to be found on page 2866 of Hansard, and he said: That matter would, of course, have to be discussed with the United States. I cannot make any firm commitment. I can only express a personal opinion which it would not be wise for me to express here. It would have to be discussed, as the hon. gentleman knows, with the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, here we have the Prime Minister stating that NORAD was an integral part of NATO, and then we have the Min- ister of National Defence saying he could not say whether it was or not without dis- cussing it with the United States. That con- tradiction has not yet been cleared up, either yesterday or today. As a matter of fact, the only definite statement we have on the subject whatsoever-and I say this though it may hurt the feelings of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-is the clear-cut state- ment made by Mr. Spaak as quoted verbatim by the Leader of the Opposition last evening. Now, let us turn directly to the formal notes with which we are actually dealing. What does this document say? It says this: In view of the foregoing considerations and on the basis of the experience gained in the operation on an interim basis of the North American air defence command, my government proposes that the following principles should govern the future organization and operation of the North American air defence command. (1) The commander-in-chief NORAD will be responsible to the chiefs of staff committee of Canada and the joint chiefs of staff of the United States, who in turn are responsible to their respec- tive governments. Where is NATO there? NATO is just not there at all. The formal note continues and says, in paragraph 2: The North American air defence command will include such combat units and individuals as are specifically allocated to it by the two governments. Let us review that very briefly: "In view of the foregoing considerations and on the basis of the experience gained in the opera- tion of the North American air defence com- mand" I would have thought that the Min- ister of National Defence or, at least, the Prime Minister, would have told us just what experience was gained in the operation on an interim basis of the North American air defence command, because we were told last night at about a quarter to ten by the Min- ister of National Defence that no Canadian squadrons have yet been allocated to NORAD, and I have yet to read anywhere that the United States bas allocated any to NORAD either. It would be interesting to know that too. But on the basis of what we do know with regard to our own country, namely that no squadrons have been allocated to NORAD, just what is the experience that has [Mr. Winch.] been gained in the operation which has con- vinced the government that there should now be this Canada-United States agreement as has been outlined and as is now before us for consideration? I say, "for consideration" and not for rati- fication because there is already a signed treaty in existence between the two govern- ments. This brings to mind another point which I think is worthy of the utmost con- sideration, and that is that a treaty between Canada and the United States of this nature is most certainly a matter of external rela- tions and is, surely, just the type of subject which we have established a standing com- mittee on external affairs to consider. I am amazed that on a foreign relations question of this importance and nature action of this sort should not have been taken. As I have said, on the basis of the exchange as outlined in the formal notes I can find nothing which would constitute NORAD as an integral part of NATO. I was interested when the Secretary of State for External Affairs just a few moments ago stood in his place holding in his hand a little blue booklet called "North Atlantic Treaty Organization". I presume it is exactly the same one I have, published in Paris in 1957 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion under the authority of the information division. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to one page of that booklet and said that there was to be found conclu- sive evidence of our tie-in with NATO. It does not do any such thing. Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac): I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never used that document for that purpose. Mr. Winch: It certainly sounded that way. Far be it from me to question what the minis- ter intended to convey. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members of this bouse and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs just what is the meaning and position of NATO and for that purpose I am going to quote from page 5 of this book- let under a section headed, "Why the Treaty was Signed". It states: The North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, arose from a community of interest long visible in the history of the west, but never before given such clear recognition and expression in time of peace. Today, the North Atlantic no longer represents a vast barrier separating two continents, but the inland sea of a closely-linked community. Its seaways and adjoining waters serve a group of nations which have been nurtured in common traditions and which share a common respect for the rule of law, and individual liberty . . . Now, for the first time, they pooled their resources for collective defence before aggression started, in the hope and conviction that in this way they would preserve peace. May I interject at this point to explain what the words "pooled their resources for collective defence" mean to this group. Hon. members o! this party over the years have emphasized the need for collective security and collective defence and at ahl times sup- ported measures calling for these things but when we use the word "collective" that is exactly what we mean, the pooling in one col- lective security organization and not individ- ual nations entering into collective security agreements when they choose and remaining outside when they wish to do so. We believe in true collective security. I continue quoting from page 5: The treaty could not have corne into existence without a major change in the policies of some of its signatories, and yet it was signed by 12 widely spread nations. varying in size and importance from the United States ta Luxembourg and representing two continents. North America was represented by the United States and Canada. In what way do the United States and Canada tie in? We can find that too, because on page 21 we read: The council then proceeded to establlsh a defence committee. composed ordinarily of defence min- isters, and charged wîth the task of drawing up unifled defence plana for the north Atlantic ares. It suggested specifically that the military part of the organization should include a military com- mittee and certain regional planning groupa. May I emphasize the f ollowing comment: The regional planning groups were instructed 'ta develop and recommend ta the military committee, through the standing group, plans for the defence of the region"'. In that same paragraph of the booklet Canada and the United States are indicated as one region and as such they were instructed to develop and recommend to the military committee through the standing group plans for the defence of the region. On page 47 of the report under the heading "Canada-United States Regional Planning Group" we read: This planning group, which covers the North Aznerican ares, develops and recommends ta the mlilitary commlttee, through the standing group, plans for the defence of the Canada-United States region. Throughout this entire officiai document of NATO it is understood that Canada and the United States as a regional planning group are to develop and recommend to the milltary comrnittee of NATO the over-ail defence plans and according to my interpretation NATO exercîses supreme authority. On the last page of this bookiet there appears a graph which shows the chain of command from the supreme ailied commander Atlantic right down through to our own air force and navy on the Atlantic coast. It is a graph very much different from the one sup- plied to the hion. members of the estimates committee yesterday by the Minister of National Defence. NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement As I said, we in this group have always supported to the fullest extent the concept of collective security and collective defence but we are stili in the dark as to the direct rela- tionship in conformity with NATO that exists as a resuit of the introduction of the NORAD treaty agreement with the United States. We strongly feel we have flot been given the information which as members of the House of Commons we are entitled to receive which would give us a satisfactory under- standing of the situation. There is stili too much confusion and contradiction. 1 have already mentioned one example of the squad- ron control. I suppose we cannot challenge the state- ment of the Minister of National Defence to the effect that the strategic air command planes of the United States air force do not fly over or from Canada and yet on the sanie day that statement was made the Prime Minister announced that permission had now been granted for the establishment of tanker refueiling stations ini Canada. There may be a logical explanation but we have not heard it yet as to why the United States should want to establish tanker refuelling stations in Can- ada if United States planes are not fiying over or from Canada. There are many questions which have not been satisfactorily answered. Several con- tradictions have not been reconciled. The confusion has not been cleared away. 1 do not think hon. members of this house should be expected to reach a decision on this matter until such time as the confusion has been ellminated and the confiicting statements of ministers of the present government have been reconciled and until we have been taken into the confidence of the government as completely as possible within security provi- sions to enable us to appreciate the necessity for this action and be convinced that this is a direct part of the NATO command. Mr. Speaker: May I take this opportunity to deal with the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and seconded by the hon. member for Tim- niins (Mr. Martin) while the Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea) was in the chair. The Acting Speaker expressed the view that the amend- ment was probably irrelevant but reserved decision. 1 concur in the view he tentatively expressed as to the irrelevance o! the pro- posed motion which I think is apparent from a consideration of the motion itself which calîs for two things; first, that it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement and, second, that this h ouse do approve the agreement. That is ail that the motion puts forward. In effect, if the motion is affirmed it will approve the agreement and JUNE 11. 1958 1053 HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement if it is negatived it will disapprove the agree- ment. If the amendment has the effect of denying the motion it is unnecessary and irrelevant because those members who wish to disapprove the agreement have only to vote against the motion as it stands. If the amendment adds something to the motion in a positive way it is a declaration of principle in these terms, that it is ad- visable for the government to give consider- ation to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements with- in the structure of NATO. Assuming that the amendment and the motion were accepted you would have the agreement approved but you would have added to it a declaration of this independent principle which is not re- lated to the motion nor is it necessary for the decision of the motion in question. That view is reinforced by a consideration of the limited number of cases where it is possible to introduce a principle by way of an amendment. There are only three or four cases. A very similar matter was con- sidered by the Speaker in 1932 as set out on page 48 of the Journals of the house for October 20, 1932. If I may, I should like to read the relevant portions to indicate the limitations that all members are under in an attempt to add a principle to a motion of this kind. The Speaker of that time said: There is no doubt in my mind that under standing order 48- Which is now 44. -this motion can be amended. The original motion before the house approves the trade agree- ment entered into at Ottawa 20th August, 1932, between representatives of the government of Canada and of the government of the United Kingdom. The amendment proposed both approves and disapproves of the agreement. It is out of order for the following reasons. Then the Speaker deals with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed amendment which I do not need to cite and goes on to deal with paragraphs 4 and 5 about which he says: Paragraphs 4 and 5 affirm general principles which cannot be moved as amendments to motions of this sort but which could be moved on other occasions. For example, a motion clearly could be brought forward for the purposes of this amendment but it would have to be on notice and as an independent motion. I con- tinue with the quotation: May, Bourinot and Redlich indicate that the only motions upon which amendments declaratory of principle may be moved are motions for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, motions to go into committee of ways and means and supply and for the second reading of public bills. Then he cites the references in these three authorities. On these grounds I must declare the amendment to be out of order. [Mr. Speaker.] (Translation): Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull): Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the bouse reads as follows: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same. In moving this resolution, the Prime Minister forces us to approve of principles which we have long recognized as necessary for the defence of our country and that of North America. On the other hand, so many objections were raised by the various speakers in this debate, that we are wondering whether, in fact, it is fair to ask parliament to approve of an agreement so lacking in clarity as that which was signed on May 12 by the Cana- dian Ambassador, Mr. Robertson, and by the Hon. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State for the United States. However, this discussion will have enabled us to see a second side to the Prime Minister of Canada whom we have heard in the past invariably advocate, in grandiloquent state- ments, respect for the rights of parliament and rebuke the government of the day, in and out of season, for not respecting the rights of parliament and of hon. members. If he has come forward with this resolution at this time, it is not however of his own volition, but because he was forced into it by repeated demands of the opposition which required that this matter be submitted to parliamentary approval. We know also that since last Octo- ber, the Liberal party and the C.C.F. had requested that the government acquaint the bouse with the discussions which were taking place regarding North American defence. This request was always refused on the ground that the agreement had not proceeded far enough as yet. Moreover the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had said: "How can this matter be brought before the bouse when there is nothing final or complete about it?" Nevertheless, this year when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) spoke about the agreement he did state cate- gorically, at least originally, that in his opinion NORAD was an integral part of NATO and that, therefore, there seemed to be no necessity to have it discussed by par- liament since it was merely an extension of something which had already been accepted and existed at that time. The Leader of the Opposition, and several other opposition mem- 1054 JUNE 11, 1958 NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement bers, rose to insist on an opportunity being offered hon. members to discuss this agree- ment signed on May 12 in Washington. It was onlly as a resuit of that insistence that the Prime Minister rose to say that we were to be given the opportunity of discussing it, and that we were ta have before us a resolution which would provide for a complete and use- fui discussion. At the time we began to study this reso- lution, we already knew that there was a great deal of confusion about it. Yet, with each of our hion. friends opposite rising in an attempt to clarify the situation, it grows murkier than ever. There is no doubt that the United States and Canada have been on friendly ternis for a long time. In f act, even if at times there have been causes of friction, Canada and the United States have been living in peace side by side since 1813. This is evidence of the fact that we are old-time friends of the United States but it does not mean that we should give up our personality as a nation and that we should not be considered as an autonomous country with rights of its own. I believe that, according to the agreement signed on May 12, we are surrendering part of aur sovereignty. As the Leader of the Opposition so aptly put it, there is nothing in this that compares with the sacrifices we are making for NATO. Several countries of the world have agreed in the face of danger to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the commron good. Is this agreement between the United States and Canada identical with the NATO agreement? NATO is made up of several countries whereas in this case there are only two countries making decisions out- side of NATO. Regardless of what was saîd by the Secretary of State for External Aiffairs, by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence, this agreement is quite distinct from NATO, because the Secretary General of NATO, who, was li Ottawa recently, admitted that NORAD is not part of NATO, that he had not heard of it, that it had not been discussed beforehand and that it was an experimient being looked at with interest by NATO. However, there was no statement from this international authority to indicate that it is indeed part and parcel of NATO. On the other hand, here is what I read in the introductory paragraphs of the letter sent by Mr. Robertson to Mr. John Foster Dulles: The Canada-United States region ia an integral part of the NATO area. 1055 So far, we are all agreed; no one denies that the United States and Canada are mem- bers of NATO in so far as the defence of our common good is concerned. In support of the strategic objectives established in NATO for the Canada-United States region and in accordance with the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty- Please note that there is no mention of "strategic objectives establîshed by NORAD", nor of "strategic objectives established by the Minister of National Defence of Canada and the Secretary of State of the United States", but there is mention of the "strategic objec- tives established in NATO." Up to this point, NATO had not been consulted and had not been informed of what Canada and the United States were to decide... -for the Canada-UTnited States region and in accordance with the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty. our two goverrnments have, by establiahing the North American Air Defence Command, recog- nized the desirability of integrating headquartera exercising operational control over aasigned air dofence forcea. Now, I do not see here any lîkeness, no comparison with the treaty binding the NATO nations. Besides, the hion. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) while making his comparisons, pointed out many details proving that the agreement which we have entered into with the United States is certainly not one that falîs within the frame- work of NATO. I note in the preamble of the articles of the agreement the following: In vlew of thse foregolng conalderationa and on the basia of the experlence galned In the operation on an interlm basia of the North Amnerican air defence command, my goverrnment proposes that the foflowlng principlea ahouid govera thse future organization and operationa of the Norths American air defence command. However, in the preamble immediately preceding the agreement whîch was signed, there is absolutely no reference ta NATO. Yet we were given as an excuse that this agree- ment should not be submitted ta parliament; because it did form part of the NATO concept. Well, if the right hon. Prime Minister were still in the opposition, I wonder whether his approach of the matter would have been the sanie. Those who have been members of this house since at least 1953 will recali the many tumes when the present Prime Minister rose in criticism of the former government's attitude, which, however, was very much broader than the present ad- ministration's, for no statement, no inter- national agreement was ever made or signed without being first submitted to this house. We are now before an accomplished fact. The fact is that we have signed an agree- HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement ment. It is an agreement which was entered into without parliament having had the op- portunity of looking at it, and since yesterday, members of the opposition have been asking many questions that have yet to be answered, which proves that there are still many details to be clarified. This agreement should have been submitted to this house many weeks or months ago. This government would thus have introduced something much more intelligible, not to say intelligent. We have been asking numerous questions since yesterday and no definite answer has yet been forthcoming. I have read rather carefully the answer which the Minister of National Defence tried to give yesterday to the different questions but, in spite of all my efforts and good will, I could find no clarification. He merely repeated the ques- tions which had been asked and, in what seemed unending verbiage, he gave explana- tions which instead of clarifying the situation made it more confused. I would be inclined to repeat the speech he made; it would be enough to show that the minister did not dare answer. However, a question has been asked by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to which no answer has been given either by the Minister of National Defence or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. member asked whether, in the absence of the supreme commander, General Partridge, the Canadian commander, his deputy, would have the same authority as General Partridge, under section 3 of the agreement, to give orders to American troops and squadrons without consulting the Ameri- can government. If he has not, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have not answered that question and I even wonder whether the Prime Minister, in his final reply, will be able to answer it. At first we heard that, because the situ- ation was not clear, this question could not be discussed before being submitted to the American government, but I wonder whether the American government would answer in that way before the question had been sub- mitted to the Canadian government. Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out and I would not like to take up too much of the time of the house, but I would have liked to have at least 40 minutes. . . . (Applause). I take it that this applause expresses the wish that I sit down, because when the remarks made do not hurt anyone, [Mr. Caron.] hon. members seem to be rather indifferent but when they are not indifferent, it means that they are being hurt. Mr. Speaker, why were we promised at the last session that the agreement would be sub- mitted to the house before it was signed, and why does the government refuse to submit it this year? Why was the agreement signed before being submitted to the approval of the house? Has the government reached the point where it believes itself made up of supermen, who cannot be wrong? The discussion which has been going on since yesterday, the remarks of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition and those of the hon. member for Essex East, the numerous questions asked by these two members and by members of the C.C.F. party, to which no answer has been given, show that there is still much confusion, that the question is not clear, that it has not been clarified and might never be. I hope that, from now on, whenever this government signs an agreement with another country, it will at least have the decency to ask the opinion of members of this house, to whatever party they belong, so that the government may be enlightened and may proceed more efficiently in the future. (Text): Mr. Erhar Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, the house listened with much interest yesterday to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the NORAD resolution. We were a little bit surprised that on a matter as important as is this subject he should have introduced a political note here and there. I rather regret- ted it. At the beginning of his remarks, as recorded at page 992 of Hansard, he said this: I do not intend to enter into anything of a con- troversial nature in making this presentation,- For many years now, as far as foreign policy is concerned or at least in so far as foreign policy relates to matters of national defence is concerned, we have had in Canada fairly unanimous support of one policy on the part of most sections of the Canadian people. Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South): May I ask the hon. member a question? If that is so, is your group going to vote for this measure? Mr. Regier: I should like to advise the hon. member to await the event. If he will listen to what I have to say, near the end of my remarks I believe he will have the answer; and the onus will be placed on the Prime Minister of Canada. It will not be upon us. JUNE 11, 1958 We regret that in what may be a matter involving life and death for many of our people and indeed for hundreds of millions of the world's people the Prime Minister should have injected political notes and over- tones. We feel that he was not doing the cause any good when he resorted to that procedure. We were awaiting with con- siderable anticipation the speeches that we thought were to be given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) because they are the two members of the cabinet who are most directly involved, being responsible for matters of this kind. After the election we heard that our Secretary of State for External Affairs had made a trip down to Washington in order, according to press reports, to receive a brief- ing on what was happening in the world today; and we heard, according to other press reports, that General Partridge appeared in Ottawa not so long ago to give our Minister of National Defence a briefing on what was happening in defence matters in the western world. The people of Canada were hoping that their first major speeches in this bouse on defence matters would provide much of the information that they had gleaned-and in the opinion of many, that they apparently had to glean-rather regrettably, in another country or from the nationals of another country. We had hoped that they would have been adequately informed by the senior of- ficials of their own departments and would not have had to be briefed by United States officialdom. We maintain that there is nothing that is as harmful to our defence as is a misinformed or uninformed Canadian public. One of our strongest weapons of defence is the convic- tion of our own people that everything that can possibly be done in these matters is being done. However, after listening ta the debate yesterday and today-and I am sure the peo- ple of Canada upon reading Hansard will have to agree with me-I feel that very little bas been done to inform our public. Our public will be as confused as are many mem- bers of this bouse; and many of us have no hesitation in admitting that we are very much confused indeed. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) some time ago described this whole problem of NORAD as Canada's greatest crossword puzzle. After two days of debate, it appears that not only is it a crossword puzzle but that in the interval several of the essential pieces of that crossword puzzle have been lost, and there does not seem to be any hope that the pattern can be estab- lished, The intent of my remarks today is NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement to make, on behalf of this group, one final appeal to the Prime Minister to clear up so many of the uncertainties which have existed in the past and which exist today to a greater extent than ever. The Prime Minister gave one version yesterday. He attempted to build a nice little nest. We were hoping for a nest of security into which all of us might climb, as we have so often done on other occasions in the history of the Canadian parliament. However, that nest has been considerably fouled up by the several speeches that have been made. As recorded at page 995 of Hansard the Prime Minister said: For this purpose the agreement puts these forces under the operation of a single joint headquarters, of which the senior official is a United States air force general and his deputy is a Canadian air marshal. He refers here to the agreement putting these forces under the operation of this joint headquarters. Yet the Minister of National Defence indicated very clearly that there may well not be any forces. Hence we are left in the dark on that score. As reported on the same page of Hansard, in referring to his meeting with General Partridge the Prime Minister said this: We reviewed as well their problems and the plans they formulated to meet the changing circum- stances,- I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Who formulated the plans? Then, of course, to that confusion we have added the confusion of the Minister of National Defence who indicated that there may not be any plans since he said that plans cannot be formulated in a matter of a few days and that there is nothing more now than there has always been, namely continuous consultation. I presume he was going back as far as the Ogdensburg agree- ment when he referred to continuous con- sultation. However, we are then told by the Prime Minister that the plan is for maximum effectiveness on a moment's notice. Surely, if there are no forces, if it is only a matter of consultation, how can we take the Prime Minister at his word when he refers to "maximum effectiveness" and "on a moment's notice" and "under the command of a single joint board"? The Prime Minister adds to the confusion when later on he says that this command will have powers which he describes and on page 996 of Hansard of June 10 he says: I have seen these commanders, I was impressed with them, and I feel that the Canadian people and the people of the United States can have confidence in them. Over and over again they underlined the fact that the role of NORAD is defence, not attack; that its objective is defensive, not aggressive. It HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement will not and cannot start wars. It can come into action only if potential aggressors are over our territory. And yet in another place he says "it con- tains as well the powers to retaliate against aggressors". I find it hard to reconcile those two state- ments. He assures us that he has met these commanders and we should have every con- fidence in them, that the role of NORAD is defence and not attack and its objective is defensive, not aggressive; that it can go into action only if potential aggressors are over our territory and at the same time he says it contains as well the power to retaliate against aggressors. For a defensive force to be able to retaliate requires a little more than simply powers of a defensive nature. There has been further confusion with re- spect to the planes of the strategic air coin- mand. We were assured as long ago as 1957 that a large portion of the planes attached to SAC were continuously airborne in order to be ready to implement our policy of in- stant retaliation as our major contribution to the so-called deterrent to war, and yet we were assured by the Minister of National Defence that except in special circumstances none of these planes is in Canadian skies. For many months, in fact as much as half a year, we were assured that if they were over Canadian territory they were, except under special circumstances, not equipped with nuclear weapons, and many of us were wondering what was the purpose of having these planes in the air if they were not ready to start retaliatory action which might be needed at a moment's notice. What was the purpose of it? However, we now have the situation where. possibly to further clarify the matter, we are assured that they are avoiding flying under ordinary conditions in their routine flights over Canadian territory, and I repeat the question put by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch): Why do they want re- fueling bases if they are not to be found over Canadian territory? I would like to refer for a moment to the proposal put forth some days ago when the Prime Minister, in his efforts to be political in this matter, was attempting to bait the opposition into opposing the NORAD agree- ment and when he made reference to con- tinental defence. I have with me a copy of the Ogdensburg agreement which, I believe, was the first conscious effort at providing for continental defence. This was read into the record by the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, on November 12, 1940. Mr. King read as follows: [Mr. Regier.] The Prime Minister and the President have dis- cussed the mutual problems of defence in relation to the safety of Canada and the United States. It has been agreed that a permanent joint board on defence shall be set up at once by the two countries. This permanent joint board on defence shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material. It will consider in the broad sense the defence of tihe north half of the western hemisphere. The permanent joint board on defence will con- sist of four or five members from each country, most of them from the services. It will meet shortly. That was an advisory committee set up to study the mutual problems of defence and to then make appropriate recommendations to their respective governments in respect of such action as might be considered necessary. That was an altogether different matter from the NORAD agreement now before us. I very much regret that we were not given the chance to take a close analytical look at this agreement, that we were not able to consider it in committee, even in a committee on external affairs meeting in camera. We have not been assured that this is going to be done. We are rather concerned, as was so ably pointed out by the hon. member for Koote- nay West, that in our opinion there seems to be-and I want to be fair-a departure from the principle of NATO. NATO was an organization formed wherein some 16 countries agreed that an attack on one was an attack on all. We now have a new arrangement whereby two countries, or pos- sibly even one country-and I am not sure whether under the NORAD agreement this is not possible-one country alone may en- gage in warfare without consultation with the 14 or 15 NATO allies. An indication was given by the Prime Minister that NORAD was not a diminution of Canadian sovereignty. We do not, how- ever, need to fool ourselves. Every time we sign an international agreement we relin- quish Canadian sovereignty. That is the sole purpose of affixing our signature to such an agreement. We have never been really dis- turbed or alarmed at the prospect of relin- quishing Canadian sovereignty provided such sovereignty was relinquished to a world-wide organization devoted to the cause of peace, such as the United Nations, or previously to the League of Nations, or even to a group of nations having ideals very similar to our own and who have decided to band together for reasons of collective security. Much confusion still exists as to who gives the orders. We were at one time given to understand in this house that the decision would be made at Colorado Springs. Our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) made much of the fact that he could get into contact with Colorado Springs within 40 seconds. I wonder whether this also applies to the possibility of his attending a political meeting in a little red school bouse some- where in northern British Columbia- Some hon. Members: Shame. Mr. Regier: -or I am hoping that, like the rest of us, he will be able to take a holiday. Will the 40-second phone call rule also apply to him if he is out on the golf links somewhere? We recall also that St. Hubert is involved and our own command in Canada is concerned and would also be consulted. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister introduced the subject of the rules of engage- ment as they were first issued in 1951. I think the Canadian people ought to be told, and can safely be told, that the orders have already been issued. I do not think we should try to bide that from the Canadian people. The officers commanding all branches of our armed forces have already received orders governing their action in every con- ceivable eventuality, and for us to pretend there is going to be wide consultation among civilian authorities in the case of an emer- gency is clearly a lot of eyewash intended to lull the people of Canada into a false sense of security. I would go so far as to say that all NATO area commanders have already received their orders and it is rather foolish for us to be threshing straw and attempting to define who is responsible for giving the order which would have to be given at what- ever might be the crucial moment. I particularly regret this desertion of the principle of collective security in favour of an agreement with one other nation. It completely changes the concept of collective defence. I believe that all our allies in western Europe have for some time felt uneasy at the desertion of the traditional policy of NATO. When NATO was founded we told the Soviet union that one foot on the soil of any one of us would mean instant retaliation. Now, the nations of Europe have been told this no longer applies, that they are expendable and that an invader will be allowed to swallow them up inch by inch and yard by yard. An hon. Member: Sheer nonsense. They will be disturbed if they hear your speech. Mr. Regier: Hon. members can shout "sheer nonsense" all they like but I know that the policy of the United States is continental defence first and western Europe defence second. Mr. Nesbiti: How do you know that? NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Mr. Regier: All their actions over the past several years have tended in that direction, and there is great concern among ail the allied NATO countries in Europe. There is a feeling that this concept of limited war- fare in which as much as a whole European nation could be involved bas now been accepted in North America, and I do not think the people of Europe are going to feel very happy when they hear that Canada and the United States are now making arrange- ments of their own. They feel that we will help them along, supply them with missile bases, give them missiles, even with atomic warheads and so on, but that if the fatal day should arrive we would not necessarily abide by our NATO undertaking that an attack on the territory of any one power is to be regarded as an attack on the territory of all. I am sure the Prime Minister is hoping for the unanimous agreement of this bouse with regard to the NORAD resolution. However, we would like him to explain to us how this agreement hastens the day when we will have an international police force; we would like him to explain how it strengthens NATO; we would like him to tell us what satisfaction our European allies will receive from the existence of the NORAD arrange- ment. We want to know where the NORAD agreement is in force, who gives the com- mands. What does the Prime Minister mean when he refers to new and further develop- ments? Is he hinting at some great expan- sion in defence expenditure when he refers to NORAD? We are not yet clear as to where SAC planes are in the air. If they are not in Canadian skies-and we occupy more than half of the northern hemisphere -where are they? And we are not yet satisfied with regard to their carrying nuclear weapons. Yet if they are not loaded with nuclear weapons what is the purpose of hav- ing them in the air at all? Speaking for myself I should like the Prime Minister to explain how the NORAD agreement is in line with the statement he made in Edmonton as reported by the Cana- dian Press, as follows: Prime Minister Diefenbaker says leaders of the free world must have a positive and vital program in the race for men's minds Instead of employing a negative and defensive policy designed to answer soviet propaganda. I hope the Prime Minister will explain how that ideal of his, which I am sure all of us share, and which we think is most urgent and vital today is being assisted by the NORAD agreement. We feel that the NORAD agreement may well be a danger to peace and render a disservice to western Europe unless we receive satisfactory replies to the 1059JUNE 11, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement questions we have asked, and we feel we can have no confidence in the confusing answers which the two senior ministers have given. We expect the Prime Minister himself to clear up these misunderstandings. This move- ment has always been in support of collective security. Mr. Nesbii: How about German rearma- ment? Mr. Regier: It has always hesitated to do anything that might endanger the peace of the world or the safety of our country and in answer to the hon. member for Oxford I may say that in the last parliament the C.C.F. section had a higher proportion of veterans in its ranks than any other section of the house. We are asking these things in all sincerity and we expect our Prime Minister to answer them. Mr. Speaker: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate. Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would have been allowed sufficient time before the adjournment hour today to have dealt with the many arguments that have been advanced, but this now appears to be impossible having regard to the fact that only ten minutes remain and it is necessary for me to leave very shortly in order to meet the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who commences his visit with us this evening. However, in a few moments I will deal with one or two matters that have been raised. I have listened to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I am one of those who through the years have had a regard for my friends opposite, and when they speak with sincerity, whether I agree with them or not, they do uphold the principles of parliament. The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat spoke with great vehemence and because I have known him through the years I can also add that he spoke with sincerity and I pay tribute to him in that regard. To my bon. friends of the C.C.F. may I say that to a major extent they all endeav- oured at the beginning of their arguments, including the bon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), to suggest that because NORAD was not connected with NATO and might have a weakening effect on NATO action therefore should be taken to bring it under NATO control completely and directly. All the hon. gentlemen of that group who spoke on this matter are from the province of British Columbia and all based their argu- ments on that ground. To that end they moved an amendment in these words: That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following words: [Mr. Regier.] And in the opinion of this house consideration of the interests of collective security and the principles of the United Nations make it advisable for the government to give consideration to the taking of such steps as are necessary to integrate these agreements within the structure of NATO. That was their view but it strikes me as passing strange that on June 2, 1958, at their convention in the province of British Columbia, the British Columbia C.C.F. party went on record as being opposed to NATO, urging Canada's withdrawal from it and finding collective security through the United Nations. A report to this effect is contained in the Vancouver Province of Monday, June 2, 1958. Apparently they have the best of two worlds: they have adopted one policy for their party in British Columbia from which most of them come and another policy in the House of Commons when they are speaking to the Canadian people as a whole. A former outstanding member of this house who represented the constituency of Nanaimo, Mr. Colin Cameron, spoke on that occasion to the convention and as reported in the newspaper article to which I have referred said: It is an open secret In Ottawa that from a military point of view NATO is down the drain. Proof that it is down the drain comes from the United States consistent refusal to place under it the American strategic air command. Mr. Cameron went on to say this: NATO has proved to be the major stumbling block to settlement in Europe. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of incon- sistency, ambiguity and confusion that arouses the doubts to which my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred. Where is the consistency? My bon. friends of the C.C.F. have spoken long and volubly of their deep affection for NATO but even before they rose to speak in this house the organization that speaks for them offi- cially from the province of British Columbia went on record as saying, "Do away with NATO". Now we come to the Liberal attitude. My bon. friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke about doubts, ambiguities, confusion and contradiction. I say it is dangerous for any political party to arouse fears in the hearts of people. My hon. friend and those associated with him endeavoured to do that during the recent election campaign. They said to the people of Canada all the things they have said in this bouse in the last 24 hours. They indulged in what my bon. friend the Leader of the Opposition likes to refer to on occasion as "agitated exaggeration" but the Canadian people would not be stampeded JUNE 11, 1958 by the kind of fears that he and those asso- ciated with him endeavoured to plant in their hearts. As my hon. friend continued his course of seeking to plant doubt and confusion during the campaign he finally brought forth the most amazing thought of all when he con- tended in so far as trade with the United States is concerned that we must naturally pro- tect our interests without their being pre- judiced by United States policy; that we must, for instance, make it quite clear that the United States cannot expect the full and com- plete co-operation in continental defence which is desirable if she treats us unfairly in her tariff and trade policies. Mr Speaker, I spoke with restraint when I introduced this matter but now I am tempted to speak more strongly. One would never have expected that my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that we should attempt to use Canadian trade as a weapon in respect of continental defence by saying to the United States, in effect, that it will be without a partner in the preservation and assurance of our joint defence unless that country does what Canada wants it to do. All during the campaign the Leader of the Opposition attempted to arouse doubt, fear and uncertainty in the minds of Canadians with respect to air defence. I have many clippings here. One article appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 22, 1958, under the heading, "Raps Lack of Pact with United States". Reporting on a speech made by that hon. gentleman in London, Ontario, the article states in part: He concentrated his main evening attack on the government's handling of the North American air defence setup, a move undertaken, he said, with- out any firm agreement between the two countries and without the prior consent of parliament. He didn't criticize the fact that the Canadian- American air defence had been integrated-it was the only way to defend the continent against attack -but attacked the action of the government to agree to the setup without a pact. In an article in the Toronto Star of March 21, 1958, under the heading, "United States Missile Bases Soon Not Needed in Canada" the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said at Blind River: Liberal leader Lester Pearson gave qualified approval last night to the Idea of U.S. bases in Canada for intercontinental ballistic missiles. But he made it clear he did not favour such bases until more attempts had been made to reach an agreement with Russia and had failed. The Windsor Star of February 15, 1958, reports the hon. gentleman as having said in Toronto: -the Progressive Conservative government bas given the United States "far-reaching control" over Canada's air force without first completing a political agreement to restrict the measure of that control. NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement He went on to speak of the dangers to the Canadian people. The hon. gentleman went across the nation with the same arguments that he used last evening. Mr. Pearson: Why do you not answer them? Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker I know my answer to that type of attitude and I know my hon. friend will agree with me because he bas said it on a number of occasions. It is necessary to realize in the world in which we live that action has to be taken defensively. I believe in the necessity for a positive and imaginative policy such as the hon. gentleman spoke of a moment ago in his concluding remarks but while advancing that policy we must above everything else maintain our defences. That particularly applies to us in North America because we are perhaps more vulnerable than any other portion of the world at this time. Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) but it is now six o'clock. Sone hon. Members: Continue. Mr. Speaker: Does the Prime Minister have the unanimous consent of the house to con- tinue? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer these arguments in five minutes because I wish to go into some detail. I have waited here today to take part in this debate and I do not intend criticism in saying that but in order to cover this matter fully, having regard to the haze that has been cast over this subject by the opposition, which haze was first created as a smokescreen dur- ing the recent campaign, I think it would be desirable for me to take some time in order to complete my arguments. On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow? I take it it is private mem- bers' day but would the leader tell us what the government intends to do on Friday? Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is private members' day. On Friday we shall conclude this debate and then go on with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. At six o'clock the house adjourned, with- out question put, pursuant to standing order. HOUSE 0F COMMONS Thursday, June 12, 1958 The house met at 2.30 p.m. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS First report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. White. HOUSE 0F COMMONS CHANGE IN HOURS 0F SITTING ON JUNE 13- VISIT 0F PRIME MINISTER 0F UNITED FINGDOM Righi Han. J. G. Diefenbaker moved: That, when this house adjourns on Thursday, June 12, it stand adjourned until 11.30 a.m.. Friday, June 13. Mr. Speaker: Perhaps while this matter is in aur minds I might remind han. members that there is a reception this afternoon ta meet the Right Han. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the rallway committee room at 5.30 p.m. It is a reception given by the Speakers jaintly. Presumably senators will adjourn earlier and be there by 5.30 sa there will be free passage for the members at six o'clack. While on that subi ect, I might say this. Daes the Prime Minister intend ta say anything about tamarraw's proceedings? Mr. Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The adjournmnent asked for, of course, is designed ta make possible the appearance within this chamber of Right Hon. Mr. Macmillan where he will deliver a speech ta bath houses of parliament. Mr. Speaker: Just ta camplete the matter may I say thîs. The receptian this afternoan is for the members and unfartunately does nat; include their wives. It is for the members of bath hauses and the press gallery plus some members of aur vis tar's party. I think you have ail been advised that tamarrow the bell will be rung shartly before ten a'clock. I have taken the liberty ùf autharizing that the bell be rung, although it is flot; a session af the bouse, at ten or twelve minutes ta ten. Bath hauses will assemble then ta hear aur distinguished guest. Motion agreed ta. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE QUEBEC-APPLICATION TO HOSPITAL PERSONNEL On the arders of the day: Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull): I wauld like ta address a question ta the Minister of Labour, or in bis absence ta the Acting Minister of Labour. Are the hospital administratars and employees subject ta the Unemployment In- surance Act? Does this apply even in the province of Quebec and, if not, why nat? Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister af Labour): Mr. Speaker, employees in a has- pital flot operated for gain are flot insurable except in the case af those persans employed an a temporary or casual basis, such as in construction, renovation or repair workers. However, any hospital may, at its option and with the consent of the unemployment insur- ance commission, insure any designated group of employees it wisbes; that is an aptional arrangement. THE CANADIAN ECONOMY ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY-REQUEST FOR HEARINGS IN THE KOOTVrAYS On the orders of the day: Mr. H. W. Herridge : Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester addressed this question ta me: In view of the recent threat by the Danlsh islands in the north Atlantic to follow the example of Iceland and extend their fishlng limita to 12 miles, can the mmlister advise the house if the Canadian government recognizes the extension of the fishing limits to a 12-mnile width of wat;ers off their coasta. as announccd by the government of Iceland? 57071-3-68 J Inquiries of the Ministry 1 Since this question, Mr. Speaker, is predic- r ated on the assumption that Iceland has now rformally extended its fishing limits ta 12 miles, I must point out that there has been no extension by the Icelandic government of its fisheries limits. The only definite annauncement that has been made in this respect by the Icelandie gavernment is that it has expressed its intention ta establish such a zone on September 1, s0 1 cannot answer the hon. member's hypathetical question. Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester): Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer the second question which I addressed ta him yesterday, and which is recorded an page 1037 of Hansard? It is based on a state- ment made in Halifax on Sunday last and reported in the Halifax Chranicle-Herald of Monday, June 9, ta the effect that Canada *would try ta obtain a compromise arrange- ment concerning the 12-mile fishing limit at the next conference an the law of the sea? Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries>: Since this question is apparently based on an interview with me perhaps I shauld answer it. It is evident from the news stary that a misconstruction was inadvertently put on a reply which 1 made ta a question. The misunderstandîng probably arase from the fact that I was asked if, in my opinion, any conference an the law of the sea in the near future might have a hope af reaching an agreement. I expressed the belief that there was a wide divergence of opinion and considerable confiict of interest on this ques- tion, and that agreement could only be reached as a result of compromise. I made no statement which was intended ta indîcate in any way what Canada's position would be or what Canada might attempt ta obtain at any future canference on the law of the sea. HARBOURS ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR TABLINGO0F CaRRESPONDENCE ON DEVELOPMENT On the orders of the day: Hou. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twîllin. gaie): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can ask the Minister af Publie Works if it would be possible for him ta, table the correspond- ence he has had with Sir Brian Dunfield, Harvey and Company, and with certain other persans in St. John's regarding the harbaur development, sa that it would be available ta han. members when his estimates are next befare the house? Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I think it will be possible ta table the correspondence. JUNE 12, 1958 1067 HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ONTARIO-INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL JUDGES On the orders of the day: Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): Can the Minister of Justice inform the house whether or not a reported statement made by the attorney general of Ontario is correct that eight new judicial appointments will be made in the province of Ontario? If that statement is correct, can the minister indicate whether they are all to be county court appointments or whether some of them will be appoint- ments to the supreme court of Ontario? Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): It is my recollection that at its last session the Ontario legislature passed legislation author- izing the appointment of two additional judges to the trial division of the supreme court of Ontario, and six additional county court judges. Mr. Martin (Essex East): May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the federal government to comply with that legislation, and if so will necessary legislation be in- troduced this session? Mr. Fulton: It is hoped that it will be possible to deal with that at this session, yes. BRITISH COLUMABIA-STATEMENT ON REPORTED ARREST OF MAN ON TICKET OF LEAVE On the orders of the day: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East on June 10. He asked whether my attention had been drawn to a news report that a person con- victed as an habitual criminal, and released on ticket of leave, was arrested by the R.C.M.P. under instructions from the remis- sion service, without any charge being laid or opportunity given to that person to learn of the charge or to present a defence. The hon. member then asked: Will the minister advise the house if the law of Canada or the administration of the justice depart- ment permits a person to be found guilty and reimprisoned without knowledge of the charge or an opportunity to present a defence? In answer I would say that the Ticket of Leave Act authorizes the governor general, on the advice of the appropriate minister of the crown, to grant to any person under sentence of imprisonment a licence to be at large in Canada during such portion of his term of imprisonment and upon such condi- tions in all respects as to the governor gen- erai may seem fit. The governor general is authorized also from time to time to revoke any licence so granted. (Mr. Green.] Where an inmate is released on licence under the Ticket of Leave Act he is expected to comply with the conditions of his licence and to live a law-abiding life. The authority to revoke a licence is exercised where the remission service has reason to believe that a licensee is not complying with the conditions of his licence or is not leading a law-abiding life. This is essential for the protection of the public. Where a licence is revoked no new charge is laid against the licensee, nor is he sen- tenced to any new term of imprisonment. The warrant that is issued for his apprehension requires him to be brought before a magis- trate and requires the magistrate to commit him to the institution from which he was released on licence, there to continue to serve the balance of the sentence that he was serv- ing when he was released on licence. TRANSPORT STATEMENT ON ALLEGED USE OF FOREIGN PILOTS WITHOUT CLEARING CUSTOMS On the orders of the day: Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he has an answer to the question I addressed to him the other day concerning the practice of customs officials with regard to the pilots of foreign ships on the great lakes. Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue): I have not an answer prepared in that regard, but in general the practice of the department, in furtherance of the legislation made in that behalf, has per- mitted pilots, as well as shipping masters operating on the great lakes, to leave their ships from time to time, regardless of the hour of the day or night at which the ship might be calling at the port. The reason for this is obvious. Very often the ships do call at a time when customs officers are not available and this permission, this right if you like te call it that, has been accorded to pilotage officers for many many years. It is a right to which is attached very substantial penalties if any violation of the law occurs. The honour system is applied, to some extent, with respect to pilots, but if the honour system should be violated in any way there are substantial pecuniary penalties im- posed on the pilots and they also forfeit their licences. From time to time this may cause some dif- ficulties, in circumstances such as those men- tioned by the hon. member, when there is some conflict between groups in this par- ticular area. Certainly if the law is to be applied, it has to be applied to all pilots. I would not think it would be a very happy JUNE 12, 1958 situation if the law were changed so as to require pilots to only come ashore at times when customs officers were available. This would be a distinct departure from the prac- tice which has prevailed throughout the years, and one which I doubt would be welcomed by the hon. member or by the great number of men who would be affected. The department is watching the situation carefully. If any reason occurs for a change -and it might-then a change will be brought in by means of appropriate regulations or by legislation. Of course it will have to be applied to all pilots, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast, and not just to those in any one area. SHIPPING BRITISH COLUMBIA-TAXATION OF WHARVES AND BOAT HOUSES On the orders of the day: Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooenay West): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not giving him notice, but it has just come to mind. In view of the urgent importance of this matter to some of my constituents, could the minister inform me when he will be able to give me an answer to the question I asked with respect to provincial taxation on wharves and boat houses, which was asked on May 22? Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): I thought I might be able to give a reply right now. I hope to be able to do so tomorrow when I have relocated my notes. IMMIGRATION REPORTED DENIAL OF ENTRY TO CANADA OF DUTCH FAMILY On the orders of the day: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin- gate): Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration now in a position to answer the question I asked some time ago about the Dutch family in Halifax? Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I am afraid not satisfactorily. We have been trying with- out success to locate the son who is in Vancouver somewhere. Unfortunately he has moved about three times and left no for- warding address at any time. Although we have been trying hard we have not located him as yet. RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING REDUCTIONS IN RAIL SERVICE Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-11, to amend the Railway Act. Railway Act He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may, at the request of the interested municipality or munici- palities, deal with any proposed reduction of service by any of the railways. Vfy bring- ing this bill before the house was occasioned by recent action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in my constituency and in south- eastern British Columbia generally. Before this debate is over I trust that I will be receiving the strong support of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane) and the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary (Mr. Pugh) because I have been informed that a good number of their constituents are also greatly interested in this question. The action which caused the concern in our district and which has resulted in my introducing this bill is first, the reduction of the service on the Kettle valley railroad by the Canadian Pacific Railway from a standard train service to the present Budd car service; and second, the curtailment to twice weekly of the service between Nelson and Penticton. That is the basis of the dis- content that exists in the area at the present time. So far as my constituency is concerned there is a unanimous protest against this ac- tion of the company. It includes members of all parties. That is why I rise to speak with such high hopes and great anticipation with respect to the final disposition of this bill. This afternoon I can truthfully say that I am speaking for thousands of persons who are members of all parties in my constituency and a good many others in the adjoining constituencies. These protests have been evidenced by meetings of chambers of com- merce, trade unions, farmers' institutes and municipal councils to deal particularly with the reduction of service that I am going to mention this afternoon. To indicate the type of protest that is being made at this time as far as chambers of commerce are concerned, here is a letter from Trail addressed to the vice president of the C.P.R. at Vancouver: Dear Sir: This committee of the Trail chamber of com- merce wishes to express its protest against the recent curtailment of passenger train services to twice weekly between Nelson and Penticton. It is hoped that this is a temporary measure of short duration and that the regular services will be put into effect at an early date. May we have your assurance on this matter. Yours very truly, A. S. Mawdsley, Chairman, Transportation, mail and freight committee, Trail chamber of commerce. HOUSE OF COMMONS Railway Act Then I read another letter indicating the discontent of the Nelson chamber of com- merce. It is addressed to Mr. N. R. Crump, president, Canadian Pacific Railway, Montreal, Quebec, and reads as follows: Dear Sir: The people of Nelson and district are far from satisfied with the passenger service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The Nelson chamber of commerce are continually receiving complaints about the inadequate train service of twice weekly and the lack of service on this run. At our executive meeting held recently it was unanirnously agreed that this chamber submit to you a request for resumption of daily service from Nelson to Vancouver and that something be donc ta provide for serving meals and also some sleep- ing accommodaticn. We would very much appreciate an early reply regarding this matter. Respectfully yours, (Mrs.) E. Christiansen, Secretary. Then in addition to chambers of commerce the trade unions unitedly have opposed this reduction of service, as have farmers' in- stitutes, hospitals and other organizations. I have received letters from a large number of people who are greatly concerned about this situation. To indicate the attitude of the hospitals I will quote one paragraph from a letter I received from Mr. E. M. Stiles, chair- man of the board of Kootenay lake general hospital in Nelson. It is addressed to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Can- ada, Ottawa, Ontario and reads in part as follows: Gentlcm'n: At the last meeting of the board of directors of the Kootenay lake general hospital, the matter of the pcssenger train srvice here was of concern ta nember7, and a resolution was unanimously passed protesting the inadequacy of the present train service, and askinz that the board of transport comnti sioners be nctified of this protest, and in- foi.cd that the lack of service is an obstacle in the way of good patient care. That same protest is supported by all the hospitals in the district, w'hich find it ex- tremely difficult during winter conditions to deal with patients who require transport to the coast and things of that sort. When the minister was in my district during the election and, I think it is safe to say, was doing his best te terminate my public life, he was met by a large delegation of business- men in Nelson including representatives of the chambers of commerce, and also a represen- tative delegation of trade unionists, and a brief was presented to the minister express- ing the point of view of the persons who were making these representations. Although it [Mr. Herridge.] is a lengthy brief, Mr. Speaker, I think I can- not do better than put this brief on the record because it very well covers the whole situation. I might say that this brief is the work of two or three members of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers in Trail who took the time really to probe into the question and to compile or assemble these facts for presentation to the minister. It was generally recognized throughout the district, after its publication in the local press, as being the best of the representations that were made on the question. These men who had drawn up this brief as the result of a considerable amount of work received con- gratulations from people all over the district. When people approach a problem in a con- structive way and do not just sit back and howl but do something to present a case; when they use their time and their ability to present a certain situation to the minister, as these representatives did for the district as a whole, I think their efforts should be commended. While the brief is long I am going to put it on the record, because I think in that way I can best bring to the attention of the house and the minister and the many other people who read Hansard-and there are a great many people who read Hansa'rd in my district -what has been done, and in that way they will have a permanent record of the efforts of these people and of the situation com- plained of at the present time. These repre- sentations were made to the minister, as I said before, during his brief visit to my district ,when he was personally concerned about my return to this house. Anyway, this is the brief. The paper I an reading from is the Trail Daily Times, which is a Conservative paper interested in this question as are all the other pap.rs in the district, and is owned by a very close relative of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). It states as follows: Local 480 Presents Brief to Hees Local 420 cf the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers today presented a brief to r-n-port minister Gcrge lees at Nelson calling for the resump t ion of daily service on the Kettle valley line between Penticton and Nelson. The brief, presented by local 480 president AI King of Trail, also protested the Canadian Pacific Railway Company being given any further fran- chises, such as air franchises, ". . . when they apparently wished to curtail services to the public in areas where they hold an exclusive railway franchise, as they do in the Kootenays." The text of the brief follows: "Trail and district smelter workers union, local 480, of the autonomous mine mill and smelter workers union in Canada welcomes this opportunity of placing before you in your capacity as Minister of Transport some of the grievous problems that have been and are aîtlicting this general area of JUNE 12, 1958 east and west Kootenays in the province of British Columbia, concerning the curtailment of railway services." I might explain at that point that this brief received unanimous endorsation at a conference in 'Nelson of representatives of the trade unions in Kootenay east and west just prior to my leaving for Ottawa. "We have appealed to the provincial govern- ment, and Mr. Wicks, who serves in the dual capacity of minister of labour and railways, has advised us to place the matter before the federal authorities. This we suspect as being more in the spirit of buck-passlng than In any genuine interest of helping resolve our problems. As is generally well known throughout the entire world, the east and west Kootenay, whilst not too heavily populated, is rich and valuable in readily available natural resources. By comparison with the hundreds of workmen who produce the primary and raw materials from this rich ares, thousands of jobs are made possible in the manufacturing and processing industries of the North American continent originating from rich resources of the bountiful Kootenays. One company alone, namely the C.M. and S., which is the major base metal producer of the area in the year 1956 handled a total of 21 million tons of freight, incoming and outgoing, from its Trail plants. The Sullivan mine aI Kimberley, the Bluebell mine at Riondel, and the H.B. mine at Salmo also would make substantial additions to that figure. Many other producing mining com- pacies operate in the Kootenays as well. Tons of Material Over the rail lines into and out of the Kootenays flow millions of tons of ores, concentrates, base metals and precious metals, as well as fertilizers, both in solid and liquid forms, to say nothing of the vast supplies of machinery and equipment necessary to supply this flourishing industry. The west Kootenay is also the centre of a rich and substantial logging, lumber and forest products industry. One of the largest match companies in the world, the Eddy match company, have just recently acquired holdings in the area, which speaks well of the Kootenays as a producer of valu- able wood and forest products. Certainly no one can deny that In the 50 or 60 years since the C.P.R. rail through the Kootenays was established, the steady growing revenue through the increased productivity of the whole area has been a source of considerable satisfaction to the one Canadian railway company that holds the trans-Canada rail monopoly in this area. C.P.R. Service Accompanying the general increase over the years in the volume of freight. it is safe to Say that there has been a considerable reduction in pas- senger service, and, whilst to some extent the general trend of public travel has been to in- dividual vehicular traffic, this union will always insist, and does se now, that adequate rail service should be provided at al times." I might say that in this respect the union is supported by all people and all organiza- tions in the district I have the honour to represent. "This is probably more necessary during the winter months when mountain conditions force many people to rely on the railway for transporta- tion. It is many years now since rail passenger service was completely discontinued into sideline Railway Act points such as Rossland, Trail, Slocan valley, etc. Main line passenger service, however, is an en- tirely different matter. In November of 1957, and apparently with the blessing of the ministry of transport, the C.P.R. summarily removed sleeping and dining car facili- ties for travel to and from the Kootenay area. We claim this Is a rank Injustice and that the Minister of Transport should require them to re-establish the former service. We do so for the following reasons:" When that was written the union over- estimated the minister's powers according to the law, and has since found the matter was not quite as they thought at that time. Considerable numbers of people, both adults and children, are forced to travel to the larger centres, Calgary or Vancouver, for specialized medical and surgical treatment. To these people, railway facil- ities present the only opportunity for travel as bed patients on a daily seven days per week basis, air line travel being not only uncertain, but in some cases not suitable for an ailing person. All other possibilities such as road travel are too severe a hardship for such unfortunates. In this respect I might say that during last winter I believe planes where unable to land in my constituency for a period of not less than 80 days. "Need Man Here The workmen's compensation board of B.C., des- pite this union's efforts to have an examining office stationed in the interior, still requires all those in need of special examination or treatment among their claimants to travel to Vancouver. A similar situation confronts the disabled veteran who ts obliged to enter the Shaughnessy military hospital at Vancouver and who heretofore could also travel in the relative eomfort which the C.P.R. alone has been, and is, in a position to provide. We urge you, sir, to make this a responsibility of this company and to order the immediate resumption of sleeper and dining car service." In that respect I would mention that I know of one or two cases of veterans who were seriously ill and whose transportation to the coast had to be delayed because it was not possible to use this service. "In January of this year, ostensibly to protect the train crews and the public from alleged Doukhobor bombings, a further reduction in service was brought about when the daily passenger run was reduced to two days per week, each way. Although this union is as concerned with the safety of the railroad workers and the general public as any ether group, we are not convinced that this severe cut in service is warranted." I might mention that the railroad workers wholeheartedly endorsed this brief and its presentation to the minister. "Possibly because of an Incident of some years ago when an employee or agent of the railway company was implicated in a terrorist act, many people suspect that all of the uproar and suspicion attached to the Sons of Freedom sect of the Doukhobors is mere subterfuge and that they are being used as a convenient excuse that at this time suits the economic outlook of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In this connection, it is worth observation that there bas been no reduction in the pay load traffic HOUSE OF COMMONS Railway Act and the question is naturally asked-is the C.P.R.'s concern for its passenger run crews genuine when they appear to ignore the safety of the personnel on the freight runs? Instituted Embargo We have been informed by various farmers and poultrymen in the west Kootenay area that the railway has instituted virtual embargoes on the shipments of livestock and poultry. Indeed one of our members, a pigeon fancier, bas protested to this union that he and his group can no longer transport their racing birds by rail and that the only alternative, truck travel, is unsuitable to their needs. Surely this is going too far when groups such as this are so sorely inconvenienced by a whim of the C.P.R.". I might say in this connection- An hon. Member: From what are you reading? Mr. Herridge: I explained at the start that I was reading from the Trail Daily Times, which is a Conservative paper owned by a very close relative of the Minister of Public Works. I might mention on this last point that there has been, I think, some remedy with respect to the matters complained of by the pigeon fanciers' association and the canary breeders' association, which are the only ones in my district who had redress for their grievances. "Here again this union maintains that the needs of the Kootenays are being entirely ignored by the C.P.R.'s apparent refusal to give service for which their franchise was granted to thei to the exclu- sion of all others and that they are not living up to their commitments to this community and therefore the country as a whole. We urge you, Mr. Minister, to use your power in such a way as to redress all these grievances and force the Canadian Pacifie Railway to provide these necessary daily services, upon which the people of the whole southern interior of B.C. depend. Unemployment As a union we cannot ignore the fact that these moves aggravate the mounting unemployment problem in Canada and this area in particular. We maintain that froin this viewpoint alone, the Canadian Pacfine Railway has a responsibility in the general econornic welfare, and that by main- tenance of adequate service between fifty and one hundred workmen would again be gainfully employed. Canadian Pacific Airlines Your governinent recently saw fit to bring to an end the sole right of the Trans-Canada Air Lines to provide east and west air travel, which the Canadian Pacifie Company, among others, after pressing for many years, hailed as a proper move in the so-called free enterprise of our nation. We cannot refrain from commenting here that in areas such as the Kootenays, where the Canadian Pacific Railway is apparently engrossed, apart from all considerations of the public welfare in cutting service, their entry into the trans-Canada air travel field is unearned. We feel it only fair to say that as a union we oppose this company being given further franchises when they apparently wish to curtail necessary services to the public in areas where they hold an exclusive railway franchise, as they do in the Kootenays. [Mr. Herridge.] 100th Birthday As you know, Mr. Minister, 1958 is a proud year in the history of the province of British Columbia. We are celebrating our 100th birthday-100 years of dynamic progress in productive and cultural con- tributions te the welfare of our nation, and our people. It is somewhat ironie that precisely at this moment the C.P.R. seeks to turn the clock back instead of forward. Instead of looking forward to improvements in rail travel, in step with our general progress, the C.P.R. blithely institutes retrograde actions, such as they have instituted in these recent months. Throughout the whole of 1958, it is anticipated there will be thousands upon thousands of visitors to every part of the province where the great centennial events are being programmed. We ask you sir what their estimation of B.C. as a thriving province, would be when our visitors are forced to endure rail travel of the nature that is presently available to them through the courtesy of the Canadian Pacifie Railway, who advertise themselves throughout the world as the world's largest and most progressive travel organization. On behalf of our union, and indeed the union men and general public of this province, we urge you to use your power to ensure that these con- ditions be rectified, and soon. Mr. Speaker, I have read at considerable length from this brief because it deals with the question very thoroughly. As I said earlier, it has attracted much favourable comment throughout the district and of course has received very large support. When the brief had been presented to him, and when representations regarding it had been made-and I am informed that the minister appeared to the delegation to be a very likeable person,-he replied to the delegation with these words: "I have no power to tell the Canadian Pacifie Rail- way what to do". I understand that according to the law as it stands at the present time that is so. That was when the minister agreed to talk to Mr. Crump of the C.P.R. A long time has passed since the hon. minister had this opportunity to talk to Mr. Crump. I am sure that after he said he would discuss this matter with Mr. Crump and the members of the transport commission he did do so, but the same situation exists. There has been no improve- ment whatever. We still have to put up with this bi-weekly service between Pentie- ton and Nelson, and with the Budd car. It is admitted that the Budd car service is somewhat more rapid; it is a very nice day coach, one might say. But the service is not sufficient, and the Budd car does not provide sufficient conveniences for older people, people with children, people who are ill and others who for various reasons cannot easily sit up in a day coach on the journey between Vancouver and Lethbridge, for example. As far as food is concerned, one has to rely upon a boy who comes along periodically. JUNE 12. 1958 Sometimes he brings with him cups of coffee which he takes on at the stations together with some sandwiches which, on occasions, can be very dry indeed. I have travelled when there have been no coffee and no sandwiches; the rations have been entirely depleted be- cause of the number of people travelling. The C.P.R. will argue that the traffic does not warrant a better service, but what the C.P.R. is doing is actually reducing the traffic by making the service most unpopular. Every- one who can do so is travelling by some other means. However, we in the Kootenays do not wish to be unfair. No one can expect companies to do the impossible, but this happens to be a very profitable section of the railway as a result of the hauling of ores from Kimberley and other mines to Trail and then the hauling of manufactured products from Trail to the coast and to other points in Canada. It is a profitable section of the road, and we feel that an area producing such a great amount of goods and such revenue for the C.P.R. should not be deprived of greatly needed rail facilities. I am not going to elaborate at much greater length because I think the brief explains the situation quite well, but I do want to indicate that all this discontent is the cause of my having been asked to introduce this amend- ment to the Railway Act in order to give the board of transport commissioners the power to provide to municipalities concerned and affected by reductions of service such as I have described the opportunity to make rep- resentations to the board, and making certain that no company can reduce services without first hearing representations from the muni- cipalities concerned. Under the law as it now stands the railway companies are required to make application for a hearing only when they are going to abandon a service. They can reduce the service without making any application to the board of transport commissioners. This bill makes it necessary for them to make an application to the board of transport com- missioners before being empowered to reduce a service, and makes provision that the board of transport commissioners should hear rep- resentations from the municipalities con- cerned in the area where the reduction of services is proposed. I am sure the minister has a good picture of the situation with which I have been deal- ing, and I trust he will support this amend- ment to the Railway Act. It would mean a great deal not only to the people who are presently concerned in southeastern British Columbia, but to people in other parts of Canada. 57071-3-69 Rauway Act I trust hon. members in this house gen- erally will also support this bill as being to the general advantage of the people of Canada. While the Kootenay area suffers at the present time because of the lack of power vested in the board of transport commis- sioners, a good many Canadians in other parts of the country have suffered in the past be- cause of the lack of these powers. Let us protect the rights of the people in the future by adopting this modest and, I think, very fair amendment to the Railway Act. Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trans- port): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has been very interested, as I have been, in listening to the comprehensive outline of this situation given by the hon. member for Kootenay West. As he has said, when I was in his riding in the course of the past election campaign I met with several delegations who put to me very strongly their objections to the curtailment of the Canadian Pacific Railway service in that area. I was very interested in what they had to say and, as the hon. member has stated, I promised I would bring their point of view personally to the atten- tion of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Crump. When I got back to eastern Canada I did so in some detail, and spent some time talk- ing the matter over with Mr. Crump. He told me in some detail also why the Ca- nadian Pacific had found it necessary to adopt the course it did in curtailing these services. This is a highly important matter, particularly to the people in the district, and because of its importance I have also dis- cussed the matter at quite some length with the board of transport commissioners. Before dealing with the hon. member's bill I would like to deal with the question of the curtailed Canadian Pacific Railway service in the district. I believe I can do that most quickly and effectively by reading a letter written on June 9 by Mr. A. LeSage, assistant director of operation, of the operating depart- ment of the board of transport commis- sioners, addressed to Mr. F. T. Collins, special assistant and secretary to the minister, Department of Transport, Ottawa, Ontario. The letter is as follows: Dear Sir: Reference to your request for some generai information on the train service Vancouver-Pen- ticton-Nelson-Lethbridge, Canadian Pacifl Railway. The route travelled by these trains, is known as Kettle Valley-Crowsnest route". It leaves the main line at Katz, British Columbia, 84 miles east of Vancouver and follows the Coquihalla pass in a southeasterly direction to Penticton and then easterly close to the American border to Nelson, B.C.; continues in a northeasterly direction to 1074 HOUSE OF COMMONS Railway Act Lethbridge, Alberta (Calgary connection) and thence easterly to Medicine Hat where connection is made with the C.P.R. main line. Through the years, a daily passenger train has been operated in both directions between Vancouver and Medicine Hat over this route with dining, sleeping car, express and mail service included. The advent of improved highways brought through bus service and encouraged privately-owned automobile travel. Air service was introduced between Vancouver and Cranbrook with stops at Penticton and Castlegar. The railway in an effort to meet the growing competition and develop new business, experimented with rearranged train schedules and local trains to and from the larger centres were added. However, the results obtained did net prove sufficiently productive to justify the heavy expenditure and the local trains were removed. The construction of the Hope-Princeton highway opened November 1, 1949, effected an approximate 145 road mileage reduction between Vancouver and Pent'cton and made all of the Kootenay area readily accessible to Vancouver. Fast and frequent service over this new highway made serious in- roads on rail traffic and the railways were again forced to seek ways and means to reduce operating deficits. A study of the economies of the service was undertaken by the company's department of research, as a result of which it was decided to replace the convention equipment (handled by steam powered trains) with rail diesel equipment as soon as the latter could be acquired from the manufacturers. It was feIt that this proposal would make possible a reduction of the running time between Medicine Hat and Vancouver by several hours and provide connection at Medicine Hat, Alberta, with the fast main line service recently inaugurated by the Canadian. This new schedule require a night operation between Penticton and Nelson and removal of sleeping car, dining car, express and mail services. Express service would be provided by highway trucks. Ceincidental with this change, steamn operated trains between Medicine Hat and Lethbridge would be withdrawn and the rail diesel cquipment operated in this area on essentially the same schedule as the trains to be withdrawn. Advice of the company's intention to make the aboxe change, was given to this department of the board in June, 1&57, and confirmed in August of that year, along with advice that the change would be made effective on October 27, 1957. Advice to the public, in accordance with the board's reouiren..nts, was to be given at least 20 days prier to the change. In anticipation of public disapproval of the company's proposai, the board's field inspector was directed on August 22, 1957, to travel on the trains then in operation and report on the traffic handled and express his views on the public reaction to the company's proposai, se that the board would be in a position te assess the situation and deal with complaints if any, when received. A check was also made of the patronage attracted to the new service immediately following its introduction on October 27. The changeover was effective October 27, with- out public disapproval. The first compIaint to reach the board was on November 15, 1957 and dealt with the lack of express service for the car- riage of livestock on the company's express trucks. This and other complaints of a similar nature were received and dealt with and a solution satisfactory to the shippers arranged. The next complaint which was of a general nature, was received from Mr. Herridge, M.P. on January 30 and reply pro- vided on February 14. [Mr. Hees.] Copies of the letters above referred to are attached. I continue: Incidentally, it might be of interest to note here that Mr. Herridge, in a telephone conversation with the writer early in January, commented favourably on the improved through service provided by the company to this area, after introduction of the rail diesel service, which provided connection at Medi- cine Hat with the "Canadian". On January 15, 1958, a passenger train was de- railed as a result of the track being bombed out near Fife, B.C. (76.9 miles west of Nelson, B.C.). This incident combined with ether bombings and the use of contact mines on the company's track- age in the Kootenay area, moved the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, after consultation with company and railway labour organization officers, to recommend that the com- pany suspend all night rail operation through the area between Nelson and Penticton. As a result, arrangements were made to operate during daylight heurs when regular maintenance of way forces were available to provide track patrols and since these employees work a five-day week, it resulted in a Monday to Friday passenger train operation between Nelson and Penticton on the following schedule: Lv. Nelson ....................... 7.30 a.m . Monday & Thursday Ar. Penticton .................... 5.00 p.m. Lv. Penticton .................... 7.30 a.m. Tuesday & Friday Ar. Nelson ....................... 4.45 p.m . The above service was made effective at 12.01 a.m. February 5, 1958. Effective with change of time April 27, 1958, the above schedules were changed as follows and are still in effect: Lv. Nelson ....................... 7.00 a.m . Monday & Thursday Ar. Penticton .................... 3.20 p.m . Lv. Penticton .................... 8.00 a.m . Tuesday & Friday Ar. Nelson ...................... 4.15 p.m. It will be noted that prior te this change, no complaints reached the board other than those above mentioned in respect of handling express traffic. However, immediately the above change was placed in effect, complaints were received and the board's district inspector was instructed to visit the area, meet all interested parties at pre- arranged places, on certain dates and times and report on the situation. The inspector's report was placed before the board on March 21, last. The board's investigation disclosed that since the company was obliged to operate through the trouble area during daylight hours, the through connection between Medicine Hat and Vancouver would have to be broken at Nelson and Penticton. It was further evident that any increase in this service would also have to be an interrupted one, thus dis- couraging public patronage. It was also hoped that this condition would be of a temporary nature, since we were advised that the attorney general of British Columbia was continuing a thorough inves- tigation and it was sincerely hoped that a solution would be reached before long. The summary is as follows: 1. The service inaugurated on October 27, 1957, appeared to be working out satisfactorily. 2. The action of the lawless element prohibited the company from using its property for the purpose for which it was constructed. 3. The present service is unsatisfactory because- To the company: (a) It is unable to get full utilization of the costly equipment recently purchased to serve this area. (b) Profitable operation of this equipment is dependent upon its continuous operation. (c) Railway operation, both passenger and freight is unsatisfactory and costly. To the public: (a) The cities of Nelson and Trail are incon- venienced because through freight and pas- senger service to Vancouver is disrupted. (b) Vancouver is the natural market and social and cultural centre for these cities. Solution of the problem would appear to be dependent upon the success of the province of British Columbia in making this territory safe for continuous rail operation. Yours very truly, (Signed) A. LeSage, Assistant Director of Operation. I would like to deal briefly with the bill itself, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate the concern of hon. members when railway com- panies find it necessary to reduce train serv- ice, I must at once say that I do not see how this amendment will give any more pro- tection to the public than already exists. The explanatory note to the bill states that the purpose of the amendment is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may, at the request of an interested munic- ipality, deal with a reduction or proposed reduction of train service. I have discussed the amendment with the board and its opinion is that the Railway Act already gives the board jurisdiction to pre- vent unwarranted reduction of train service and to entertain applications and complaints of municipalities and other interested parties regarding the adequacy of existing train serv- ice and any changes that may be proposed. In a word, the board considers that the amendment would not give to it powers that it does not now hold. In support of this position I would point out that section 315 of the Railway Act re- quires railway companies to receive, carry and deliver traffic and to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying of traffic. By virtue of sections 33, 36, 315 and other provisions of the Railway Act the board also has jurisdiction to make orders and regulations respecting train service; to require railway companies to furnish ade- quate and suitable train service and to pro- hibit them from reducing service below that standard. I believe it is well known to hon. members that the board is continually exercising the powers it has in connection with reduction of passenger train services. I have before me a copy of the board's circular No. 275, dated June 16, 1953, which directs that 20 57071-3-69J Railway Act days prior to a reduction or other change in passenger service, railway companies .sub- ject to its jurisdiction shall post at ticket offices and stations a notice of such change, and as well shall, concurrently with the post- ing of the notice, place in the hands of agents for the information of the public a circular giving an outline of the change. It is also required that a copy of the circular shall be forwarded to the board. I have this circular No. 275 and I should like to read its contents to the house: Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada Circular No. 275 Ottawa, June 16, 1953 File 24942-Reduction of Passenger Train Services In all cases of reduction in passenger train services and to provide sufficient time for investiga- tion and consideration of submissions of al par- ties, the board directs as follows: That all railway companies subject to the juris- diction of the board, in addition to the announce- ments and the advertising now done by the rail- way companies, shall post at all ticket offices and stations, 20 days prior to any reduction or other change in passenger train service, a notice reading: "Change of time will be made . . . For par- ticulars apply to ticket agent." Co-incident with the posting of this notice a circular giving an outline of the change shaIl be placed in the hands of agents for the information of the public and a copy shall be forwarded to the director of operation of the board in Ottawa. Circular No. 139 dated January 13, 1915, and circular No. 208 dated December 3, 1925, are hereby rescinded. By order of the board, C. W. RUMP Acting Secretary, Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada I want to emphasize that in all cases where the board is notified of a change in service and complaints are received the whole situa- tion is thoroughly reviewed and indeed it is not unusual for the board to direct the rail- way to defer the proposed reduction pending investigation. For instance, 44 applications dealing with major reductions or dis- continuance of passenger and mixed train service were dealt with during the year 1957. These applications were investigated on the ground by district inspectors of the branch, accompanied by headquarters officers in some instances and after consultation with the parties affected, reports and recommenda- tions were submitted to the board. Several complaints from the public pertaining to inadequacy of train service were also dealt with in a similar manner. I think it will be clear to the house from what I have said that the board does have the right to deal with the reduction of train service and that it does exercise its powers. I can assure the house that all the factors 107&aJUNE 12, 1958 Railway Act involved are carefully considered by the board and that the public interest is of paramount concern to the board in reaching a conclusion. In the circumstances I must ad- vise the house that the government is opposed to the amendment. Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the second reading of this bill. I appreciate the feelings of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in moving it. He is not alone in his problem. I understand that the line he has been referring to is a Canadian Pacific line. Up in our district we are served mostly by the Canadian National. I agree with all the remarks made by the minister. I have found out that the board of transport com- missioners did for us up in Bruce just what the hon. member for Kootenay West is now asking to have donc by this amendment to the act. If there were a clause in the amendment along the lines that the board of transport commissioners should look into their findings a little more closely in connection with giv- ing service to different communities I would be all for it. In our district we have found that after a railroad has lost the business they attempt to cut off the service. I am not finding fault with the officials of the railroad; they are there to do a job. The only thing I am finding fault with is the findings of the board of transport commissioners. In our case we had a paying line at a time when the railways in Canada were not pay- ing their way. Through mismanagement of some sort the railways lost their business to other types of transportation and now they have decided to curtail our services. I would say that such curtailment is just another move toward centralization which has been going on for the last 22 years as far as any govern- ment leadership is concerned. The height of irony is the fact that we are losing our service; after having our lines pay their way for a great number of years we are to be called on to contribute our share of the subsidy to the Canadian National Railways. If that is not adding insult to injury I do not know what it is. I agree with the min- ister's remarks that this amendment would not help the act at all. I should like to put on the record my view that the board of transport commissioners are not exercising the judgment that should be used in dealing with this problem. I have no further remarks to make except to say that I cannot see any merit in the amendment. Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, it is so many years since the constituency of Athabasca has been represented in this house [Mr. Hees.] in any manner which has been satisfactory to the people that I think I had better tell you where Athabasca is. Mr. Pickersgill: Shame. Mr. Winch: How about discussing the bill before us? Mr. Bigg: We will get to that. Athabasca is situated in the northeast corner of Alberta and covers 60,000 square miles. This area is poorly serviced at the moment by any form of transportation. We, in Athabasca, feel that transportation is of vital importance because this area forms the gateway to the north. Many pioneers have gone into this vast ter- ritory on their own and they feel that Canada, now that she has vast resources at ber dis- posal, is in a position to give considerable support to the development of the north country. Many of these people have taken the initiative and have given their whole lives to the development of this country. Now, they look to us to give them support. One of the most important means of trans- portation is, of course, the railway. Arguments have been presented to the effect that the railways have outlived their usefulness. Con- sideration is being given to the closing of many branch lines, while many others will have their service curtailed. Let us not be hasty about this. The whole economie situation in Canada is changing rapidly. We do not intend to spend money like drunken sailors, but we must plan our transportation services. The question here is, first of all, whether or not railroads should be built into that part of the country. We in Athabasca believe that rail lines should be built in there, and particularly from the McMurray district northwards. This railway would serve not only the known resources in there, but would be available for future development. So far as the servicing of the industries now in the north are concerned, we have a very active railway to Fort McMurray, at least to Waterways, which is the Fort McMurray end of the line. This railway is known as the Northern Alberta Railway, and is a joint venture of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacifie railroads. There is con- siderable tonnage passing over the line, in fact the annual report shows it is a paying line. Again, I do not want to jump to con- clusions because when we say "paying line" we mean that the books balance; we mean that on paper this part of the line pays. As we all know, our railroad companies are operated as companies. Even the government- owned railways are operated as crown cor- porations, and they have to balance their books. This balancing of the books does not necessarily mean that the lines pay. HOUSE OF COMMONS1076 JUNE 12, 1958 However, I do not think we can always assess our national effort in terms of dollars and cents or, what you might call "paying lines". We certainly cannot look at the results on a mere day to day basis. It is not of much help to look back, either. Some lines have been built where they should not have been built, and some lines should have been built which have not been built. We must not neglect the long-term view. I agree that we must balance our books, in the short-term view, but my fear is that in doing so we may be overlooking the most important thing of all and that is the solid economic future of our country. If we plan with the same forethought as our ancestors, I feel we will achieve the same results. When we build these rail- ways into the north we have to be bold but we also have to be careful to make sure we do not waste the taxpayer's money. We have to attempt to strike a balance between sound economic principles and dreams. I do not think the development of the north country is any idle dream. I have been there, and I have seen some of the potential. In Athabasca, just north of McMurray, there is one of the greatest oil deposits in the world. It is true that this oil is trapped in sand and we are only now reaching the point where this oil can be freed from the sand by an economic process. Nevertheless there is no doubt that, given time, this process will become economically feasible. According to conservative estimates there are 200 billion barrels of oil trapped in these sands. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realize that if our supply of oil from the Near East, from Venezuela or any other place were to be cut off, the tar sands of Alberta would become not only of national but international importance. Whether or not the building of a railway into that section would speed up that process, I am not sure. However, I know that if the tar sands are developed a rail linkage will be required. This railway to McMurray already carries the great bulk of the freight going into the north. As I said before, according to the books it is making money. If we extend these facilities farther north I think they will also contribute to the solid development of Canada. This railway at McMurray is the closest rail line in Alberta to the Canadian shield. The mineral resources of that shield have only been scratched. People who are conversant with railroads know that mineral .areas are considered to be one of the finest sources of revenue for railroads. If we are only looking at the dollars and cents angle Railway Act then railroads which are built to mining areas are the railroads which pay. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not the attitude of this member, nor is it the attitude of the members of this government to take a pa- rochial or even a provincial view. If there are places to which this particular railway should go in order that the country will be better serviced, I would be one of the first to give the matter consideration. The final decision will not be mine. But when the final decision is made I shall have made all the attempts possible to present the government of this country with impartial facts on which they can make a decision where to place this railroad for the greatest good of the people of this country. In case my questioner from British Colum- bia asks me what this has to do with cur- tailment of railroad services, I must say that we cannot be sure that any railroad will pay for a long period of time or that it will pay better than the building of adequate roads. In the whole of Athabasca we have 24 miles of hard-surfaced roads. Today hard- surfaced roads are essential. Hard-surfaced roads are very effective for increasing the economic welfare of any community. When I say that we need many miles of hard-sur- faced roads I do not mean that we do not need a railway. However, it is possible that the expenditure of money on hard-surfaced roads would be more economically sound at this time. That we shall need a railway into the north country to carry minerals in the future, I have no doubt. But whether we build it this year, in five years' time or in 25 years' time is something that will depend on the economic necessity. I do not know what is going to happen to the price of base metals. If the price of base metals went up rapidly, great impetus would be given to the immediate development of these projects. I merely want to point out that the cur- tailment of services or the expansion of serv- ices on the railway today is something which requires a great deal of thought and a great deal of planning. Since coming to Ottawa I have taken certain steps to look into these matters and I have found on the part of the railways a spirit of co-operation which sur- prised me. I found that they are very care- ful indeed in assessing all the factors, although I also found that they were hard- headed businessmen, that they liked to see books balanced and liked to see a good yearly report. Amongst these men I found capable engineers and men of vision who look upon the railway problem as just another national problem. They look upon it-as one of the members of the opposition said the other day-as part of a great jigsaw HOUSE OF COMMONS Railway Act puzzle. They are responsible for one of the component parts of this puzzle and they are doing as good a job as we can expect them to do under the circumstances. When business is good and traffic is heavy, the railroads make money. When business is bad and traffic is light, of course they appear to lose money and they do so. But I have found that they are willing, as are we, to look upon the matter from a long-term point of view; and if we can show them where the plans for the future will justify the extension of railways I am sure that they will be only too willing to accept their part of the respon- sibility. Where we are willing to put forth the money to extend railways into uneco- nomic territories, they will try to operate those railways as efficiently as possible. It is up to us here in parliament to decide where these railways will go and who will have to pay the bill. The C.N.R. is set up as a company but it is our company. If it loses money, we lose money. If it makes money, the whole country is better off. To get even closer to the point of whether or not we should curtail services, may I say that we have a branch of the C.N.R. extending out of Edmonton to the east to the north of the Saskatchewan river, and it ends up in a village called Heinsburg. Another branch of the C.N.R. comes west through Saskatch- ewan and ends up at a place called French- man's Butte, 38 miles distant. This railway therefore has a gap of only 38 miles. If you want to carry farm machinery from Winni- peg to Heinsburg it is necessary to go by way of Edmonton, to shunt your box car and to take the box car back east a total extra distance of 328 miles. On the other hand, if you want to ship anything from Heinsburg to Winnipeg, you have to go west to Edmon- ton and back to Winnipeg. The people who live in there naturally feel that this is an unnecessary burden placed directly upon them and their personal exchequer. It is hard for them to see why a great railway system cannot close a 38 mile gap and give them what would obviously be far better rail services. Looked upon from their point of view, there is no question that that gap should be closed. We have to decide whether, as a people, we are going to be able to give them that added facility regardless of the economic book balancing. A good many of these people went in there on the expressed promise of the then government that these facilities would be given to them. The vision of the development of the northwest- Mr. Herridge: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member. During [Mr. Bigg.] that period in which I was listening I was thinking that he would finally come to relate his remarks to this bill. However, I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the remarks of the hon. member so far are not related to the bill. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for bringing the matter to my attention. I have been listening and perhaps I was a little bit lax in the discharge of my duties in not drawing the matter to the attention of the house earlier. I should like to make this point. In the explanatory note in connection with the bill, near the bottom of it, we find this sentence: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide that the board may, at the request of an interested municipality, deal with such reduction of service. That is the bill or the amendment we are discussing. I hope hon. members will try to keep themselves within the amendment contained in this bill in order that I shall not be obliged to call the matter to their attention again. Mr. Winch: This is not a railway extension bill. Mr. Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to relate my remarks more closely to the spirit of this bill. It has been suggested that this railway should not only be extended but that the service on this line be cut out entirely. I think it is hard to discuss the cutting out of the service on this line without going into some of the history behind the line itself. With a view to making the point, in order to strengthen the spirit of this proposal that this line should not only be continued but that there should be no thought at all of cutting it out on the ethical ground I have proposed. These people deserve this line and therefore no reduction in the service should be contemplated, because along this line we have a rich agricultural community; not only that, but underneath the soil are large deposits of salt- Mr. Pickersgill: Oh, oh. Mr. Bigg: -which would keep the world in table salt and salt to be used for all com- mercial purposes. The people of Athabasca, I might inform the hon. member for Bona- vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) do not think this is a laughing matter. Underneath the soil around Heinsburg there is a vein of salt from 80 to 200 feet deep and they have a mill there which sends out seven box car loads of salt per day. I wonder if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is aware of those facts. -1078 An hon. Member: Let bim laugh that one off . Mr. Benidickson: I wonder if the hon. memn- ber was listening wben the Speaker read the purposes of the bull. Mr. Bigg: I arn confining my remarks to wbether or not the service on this lUne should be curtailed or should be discontinued. I think wbat 1 arn saying is relevant to the question when, as I bave said, seven box car loads of sait can corne out of one village eacb day. It has been suggested that tbis lime be tomn up and if that is done or tbe service dis- continued this miR will close down and 50 farnilies will bave to leave the area and seek ernployment elsewhere. That I do not think is a laugbing matter, and tbe people of Atha- basca certainly do not tbink it is a laugbing matter for tbey bave sent me to Ottawa to try to do sornetbing about it. Mr. Winch: Very well tben, support this bill. Mr. Bigg: To support this bull is correct, but as tbe minister bas pointed out, the bill itself la unnecessary because the Railway Act covers tbe problem. Mr. Winch: It does not. Mr. Bigg: Tbe act does cover the problem but my bon. friends will, I believe, have an opportunity to speak again, so in the mean- time may I continue, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Winch: On tbe bull. Mr. Speaker: Go abead. Mr. Bigg: We have another rail lime branch- ing off from this one which ends at the town of Grand Centre. Grand Centre is the shopping centre for the Cold lake airport. From the east cornes another railroad Uine where there is a gap of approximately 100 miles and the people of Grand Centre are faced witb the samne problem wbich they have in Heinsburg. If this railroad line also is tomn up or tbe service is curtailed the people of Grand Centre will suifer in the saine way. Tbere are no all-weather roads as an alternative and I think tbis is relevant to tbe point under consideration because we are talking about transportation and a fair deal in transporta- tion for ail tbe people of Canada. Tbe resuits of this bull would bave to be paid for by the people of Canada and I tbink therefore that ail the people of Canada, including those of Newfoundland, are interested in the wel- fare of every other province. I believe this is a matter wbich is important, although I bave only touched upon it very briefly because I do mot now wish to take up the time of the bouse in view of the fact that it is obvious that it is the opinion of some people tbat I amn stretching the railway Ra'iLlway Act question just a littie too f ar. I wiil therefore express my views on this subject wben a better opportunity presents itself. Mr. G. W. Baldwin : Mr. Speaker, possibly before 1 launch into my observations on this matter, in view of the rullng which. bas been made and which of course I accept, sir, I might mention that 1 had intended to approach the matter in this way, that this bill appears to be appended to section 168 of the Railway Act, which reads as follows: The company- Referring to, railway companies. -mnay abandon the operation of any Une of rail- way with the approval of the board, and no corn- pany shall abandon the operation of any Uine of railway without such approval. This bill, of course, refers to the rigbt of a municipality to appeal to the board with respect to the curtailment of services. I will state what I have in mind at once, and that is that in considerîng this question of aban- donrnent or curtailment the matter cannot be deait witb without a proper study and survey of the econornic factors which justified the original construction of the lime and of the route it follows. I wish to discuss, secondly, the question of the route of the railway which is now proposed on the basis that in my opinion if proper considerations are flot given to the choice of route it might be necessary at some tirne to apply under the ternis of the section I have quoted, either as it is now or as it may be amended, for the right to abandon or curtail such services. With def- eference, if I arn not in opposition to, your ruling, sir, I would like to say that I had intended to confine my remarks to the ques- tion of a proper choice of route for the rail- way now proposed so that there would be no need for recourse to, this particular section. Mr. Winch: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but I rise on a point of order with respect to what hie bas just said. The bill before the bouse bas notbing wbat- ever to do witb the routes of the railways or with abandonnments. It bas to do witb only a reference of curtailment of services to the board of transport coinn-issioners and with no other principle. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): I must once again direct tbe remarks of hion. members to the points contained in the explanatory notes, or hon. members may read the actual amendment. The bon. member for Vancou- ver East (Mr. Winch) is quite correct. This amendment pertains only to reduction of services. There is nothing to do with- An hon. Member: And appeals to the board. JUNE 12, 1958 1079 HOUSE OF COMMONS Railway Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): -and ap- peals to the board. It has nothing to do with proposed lines or extensions or anything of that nature. It is strictly on the reduction of services. Mr. Baldwin: May I say, sir, that I had only intended, in deference to your ruling to suggest that if proper care and caution were exercised in the selection of the route it would not be necessary at any time to apply for a reduction in services. Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the intent of this bill. I am quite conver- sant with the part of the country concerned, having done a good deal of travelling on this particular line of the C.P.R. and I trust the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will allow a little groundwork to be laid, having in mind my various trips on that line since I think my remarks will have some bearing on this debate. While travelling on the Kettle valley line in 1945 and 1950 we had dining room services, sleeper services and even a club car. The train would always be crowded and it looked to me as though it was a very paying proposition. As the minister pointed out there were certain changes in the year 1949 contingent upon the opening of the Hope-Princeton highway, which reduced the mileage from Vancouver to the Okanagan valley by something like 150 miles. Travelling on the same line in the fifties you could sec the traffic dwindle to the point where, when I made one of my last trips in that direction. I think I was the only person in the car, and on the entire train there were exactly, as far as I can remember, four people plus the train crew. However, this train gave a needed service to Nelson, Penticton, Trail and smaller communities be- tween those points. It has been replaced by a Budd car service, as the minister pointed out, and I believe the reduction in travel time between Nelson and Vancouver is, as a result, something like seven hours. I made one of the last trips on the old style equip- ment but I must confess I have not been on the new Budd car service. Discussing this service with the people who use the run I found they were in a bit of a quandary whether the reduction in the time taken made up for the lack of facilities on the new system. I think the minister was quite right in saying that while the service was a daily service there was not too much to be said against the service given to the people of the Kootenays. However, due to a radical sect, the Sons of Freedom, who must not be confused with the law-abiding Doukhobors-and there are [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea).] a lot of Doukhobors in the Kootenays who are very fine citizens-the service had to be curtailed. The Sons of Freedom are a radical sect which has created a considerable amount of disturbance, to put it mildly, for the residents of the Kootenays, and that dis- turbance has resulted in the curtailment of the service so that it now runs, as we have been told, twice weekly going eastward and twice weekly going westward, those runs being timed during daylight hours. I have travelled along the highway, and there are certain sections of the highway which follow along the Coquahalla pass and which give you a bird's eye view of the construction of the Kettle Valley railway, and it must have been a very rough decision for the C.P.R. to decide they would run this train even during the daylight hours because, frankly, anyone going over it in daylight through the Coquahalla pass would not be likely to repeat the journey. It consists of innumerable short stretches of track jutting out on stilts, and innumerable short tunnels where a few sticks of dynamite could cause a very serious ac- cident. Speaking for myself, I cannot blame the train crews or the railways for acting in the interests of safety by regulating opera- tions on that line so that all running is done during daylight hours. All this is, I believe, directed to the partic- ular problem which prompted the hon. mem- ber for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to bring forward this bill. With regard to the actual wording of the bill, the purpose of the proposed amendment, as you, Mr. Speaker have pointed out, is to provide that the board of transport commissioners may at the request of a municipality deal with re- ductions of services. Actually when the hon. member for Kootenay West was speak- ing to this bill, I believe he used the phrase the board "must hear representations" from the interested municipalities. But, in fact, according to the wording of the bill, the board "may entertain an appeal from any interested municipality or municipalities and may confirm, disapprove or vary such re- ductions of service" and so on. The whole intent of the bill is to make certain that the board of transport commissioners is aware of reductions in services and that they have investigated these reductions to see whether there is an injustice being done-whether the service is to be reduced to cut out, say, a petty loss rather than a major loss- whether, in fact, a railway should have the right to reduce or modify its service in a particular instance. Under the Railway Act it seems to me- and the hon. gentleman knows I am no lawyer, but it seems it is not too tough to find out how lawyers work-this question 1080 JUNE 12. 1958 is already deait with. In section 33, sub- section 1, sub-paragraph (b) it says titis with regard to the authority of the board: (1) The board has full jurlsdictlon to Inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any party interested. moved the second reading of Bill No. C-l3, to amend the British North America Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, "rep. by pop." was one of the forces that brought into being con- federation aMd the British North America Act. Briefly the basis ot this bill is the samne old slogan "rep. by pop."; representation by population, with certain ideas with regard to area that I hope to talk about later on. Some hon. Members: Six o'clock. [Mr. Herridge.] Mr. Fisher: Mr. Speaker, a number of members are asking to have six o'clock called. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): Is it the unanimous wish of the house to call it six o'clock? Some hon. Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): It being six o'clock, I do leave the chair. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Speaker, representation by population has been the general idea behind the apportionment of members of parliament ever since confederation. If you look at the first British North America Act you can see that that was in the minds of the people who drew it up; but it is also a fact that the climate of parliaments which, every 10 years, after the census, deal with the apportionment of seats amongst members or amongst areas, are what you might call equinoctial; they are filled with storm. Redistribution is something that every hon. member is going to hear and think about a great deal in the next four years. The next census is due in 1961. The results will be available some time in March or April, 1962, and some sort of bill will have to be brought in to change the Representation Act following that census before we can have an election. It may interest bon. members to know that perhaps one of the reasons why this parliament may not go to the people again until the late fall of 1962 is that it will be impossible to prepare a Representation Act before that time unless the government is anxious to go to the people on the 1951 census and, of course, it is impossible to believe that. As a matter of fact, I had a certain diffidence in presenting this bill to the bouse because I thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) would be announcing legislation which would bring about the set- ting up of an independent commission to deal with redistribution matters, since it has been something very dear to his heart. Unfortu- nately when the Prime Minister was in the opposition he was the victim, according to both himself and his friends, of what might be called some Gardiner gerrymandering, or a little playing around, so that once he was shunted right out of his constituency and another time he was rather badly hived. One of the members of the press gallery, Tim Creery of the Montreal Star, wrote a series of articles not too long ago on this whole problemi of redistribution and 1 think a couple of paragrapha from them would state the case for a commission fairly well. I quote: Ottawa, April 21-Several of Canada's mosi prom- mnent politicians of recent years have denounced the present system. of drawing up the boundaries of ridings. Prime Minister Mackenzie King was againat ht. Senator Charles Gavan Power, as a leading member of the Liberals in the commons, was for years the leading champion of reform. In opposition, Conservative Leader George Drew and the then member for Lake Centre, John Diefen- baker, cailed repeatedly for appointment of an independent commission to take the -geography" of redistribution out of the banda of the politicians. Thus this measure that I have introduced has had support of a predated kind from. the gentleman wielding the most power in the government at the present time. This is flot; to say that objections could Dot be taken to this bill. You do not change the British North America Act easily or casually. The purpose of this bll ia to introduce in subsection (1) of section 51 of the B.N .A. Act, 1857, the underlined words "indepen- dent o! the parliament of Canada" so that the readjustment of the representation in the commons be done in future by an independent body rather than by a committee o! the House of Commons. The British North America Act, as it reads at the present time, says that such authority as parliament shaîl determine. Thus it could be argued that parliament already has this power to create an independent commission without changing the British North America Act. As a matter of fact, that argument has been presented in the past when this idea has come up but I do not think it is some- thing we need to bother with here. I have spent a considerable amount of time on this topic and tomorrow in the mail each member will receive a typed brief o! about 16 mimeographed pages covering the rules for sharing the seats among the provinces. The second sheet gives the representation by population based on the 1956 census. This is the projected representation first time we have readjusted from the quinquennial census. The third and fourth sheets cover the samne sort of thing; the first operation and the second operation from the D.B.S. estimate o! popula- tion of last July 1, 1957. The last sheet of the firat set gives the 30 largeat Canadian constituencies in area with 1956 population. This ia the point where I became interested in redistribution because if you look down the liat you will see that Port Arthur is the fifth largest constituency in ternis of area, being 148,482 square miles, being bigger than moat of the maritime pro- vinces put together. It has a population of 78,111, which ia the largeat of any of those 30 British North America Act largest constituencies. Attempting to cam- paign in such a constituency, and recognizing that both the Liberal and Conservative can- didates were also aware of the problem, set me thînking of redistribution and of some means of evening up and getting back to "rep, by pop." to a better apportionment. I would like the permission of the house to place on Hansard two bibliographies which were prepared by the librarian of the library of parliament, which I think hon. members will like to refer to in the next four years, perhaps, as this topie keeps coming up again and again. One la entitled "Redistribution- Canada" and the other "Redistribution-Great Britain and Dominions" The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): The hion. member would like permission to place them in Hansard? Mr. Fisher: Yes. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): Has the hon. member permission to put them in Hansard? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Fisher: They read as follows: Redistribution-Canada. Dawson, R. M. Government of Canada, 1952, pages 32, 37, 39, 140-1, 362-369. Clokie, H. M. Canadian government and politics. 1944, pages 129-33, 303-5. Ward. Norman. The Canadian House of Commons' representation, 1950. 19, 58, 39, 42-7, 50-1, 36-7, 20-1, 29-35, 46-49. Basis of representation in the House of Commons, by N. Ward. In Canadian Journal of Economica, Nov. 1949. pp. 477-94. -'There'l be some changes made" [Redistribution of Provincial representation, by A. F. Cross]. In Canadian Business, March 1951, p. 42. Redistribution problem by M. Barkway. In Saturday Night. Nov. 17, 1951. pp. 2-3. Scramble for seats, by R. B. Fraser. In Maclean's Magazine, May 15, 1952, pp. 76-77. Representation in the House of Commons of the 2lst Parliament: party and province. In Canadian Journal of Economica, Feb. 1952, pp. 77-87. Representation at Ottawa. In World Affaira. April 1952. p. 13. Redistribution of seats in Parliament. In World Affaira, Feb. 1952, P. Il. How beat allot federal seats. In Financial Post, Dec. 19, 1953, p. 21. Redistribution of 1952, by N. M. Ward. In Canadian Journal of Economica, Aug. 1953, pp. 341-60. Canada: House of Commons [Readjustment of Representation]. In Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table for 1952, pp. 174-175. Redistribution bis, 1892, 1893, 1899, 1900, 1903. Analysis of debatea. statistica and general informa- tion. CPC800. Redistribution referred to in Article by Austin Cross-history, present dilblculties, etc., 1943. CPC11O9. Redistribution. 1943. Mr. King refused Duplessis' request to transmit proteat and gave reasons. Ottawa Evening Journal, July 15, 1943, pp. 1- Redistribution-Great Britain and Dominions. Wilding. Norman and Laundy, Philip. An encyclopedia of Pariament. L., 1958. pp. 120-1. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 17. pp. 317-18. JUNE 12, 1958 1089 HOUSE OF COMMONS British North America Act Daniels, S. R. The case for electoral reform. L., 1938. Ross, J. F. S. Parliamentary representation. L., 1944. Ross, J. F. S. Elections and electors. L., 1955. United Kingdom. Report of the boundary com- mission for England, 1944, in regard to certain abnormally large constituencies. L., 1944-45. 39 p. Ogg, F. A. The governments of Europe. N.Y., 1913. pp. 88-89. Seymour, Charles. Electoral reform in England and Wales. L., 1915. Index, p. 560. Gt. Brit. Report of Royal Commission on electoral systems, 1910. Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table for 1949. p. 49. Lakeman, E. and Lambert J. D. Voting in dem- ocracies. L., 1955. pp. 71-73. Crisp, L. F. The parliamentary government of the Commonwealth of Australia. New Haven, 1949. pp. 38- Robson, J. L. New Zealand, the development of its laws and constitution. L., 1954. pp. 30- Webb, Leicester. Government in New Zealand. Wellington, 1940. pp. 10- Hogan, J. Election and representation. Cork, 1945. Southern Rhodesia. Commission appointed to inquire into the matter of re-division of the electoral districts of the colony, 1947. I think the articles and the references that bon. members will find in Hansard as a result of this will open up the topic very much to them. The second part of the information which I have sent to each member gives the statis- tics for all the constituencies in Canada as they exist at the present time, province by province, with their areas in square miles and the number of electors in 1957; that is, the 1957 general election, the population in 1956, the population in 1951 and the last time each constituency was changed. The reason for giving the three population figures is to give some idea of the growth, and how some con- stituencies are going through tremendous growth while others are not but, as a matter of fact, are retrogressing. The point about giving the figures for electors is to let hon. members sec that the relationship between the number of electors and the population is not a constant thing in all constituencies in Canada. I do not believe that the number of electors is the factor to work on in considering how big a constituency should be. My reason for that is that with the tremendous growth in the responsibilities of the federal government, it is the population that counts. For example, you can quite often have immigrants who do not have Canadian citizenship and the right to vote, or even children, giving you more work to do as a member of parliament than electors, and therefore I think the argu- ment, that population rather than electors is one of the most important things to keep to the fore in determining how many people there should be in a constituency, is valid. It should be by population and not by the num- ber of electors. [Mr. Fisher.] The argument in connection with redistri- bution has to be presented historically; that is, you have to go back and look at the thing from the beginning in order to really appreciate it. An expert on this particular facet of our parliamentary life, aside from the chief electoral officer who knows a great deal about it, is a professor from Sas- katchewan by the name of Norman Ward. Perhaps I should give one brief quotation from his great book which is called, "The Canadian House of Commons": A debate on redistribution reveals parliament at its worst. Unfortunately, that is true, and the reason is that redistribution affects every one of us or can affect every one of us. We ail have an interest in this problem, whereas almost every other bill that comes before the house may represent a mere party decision to us. Redistribution represents the only occasion upon which all members are interested in the subject under discussion. I think this is a problem that should interest every member in the house, and that is one of the main reasons why I have put forward so many statistics. This enables each member to ascertain how his constituency compares with other constituencies in his area, whether he is above the mean or below the mean in terms of population. The statistics also give him an idea how his constituency compares la area. The mean figure in the 1962 redistribution will probably be somewhere between 64,000 and 66,000 people. If your constituency is above that, perhaps it needs a readjustment. If it is below, there may be need for amalgam- ation or something else should be done to adjust the balance. I have a number of proposais that I want to make, but perhaps a little quotation from one of the most vitriolic tongues the North American continent has ever had, that of H. L. Mencken, on the point would be appro- priate. He said: The yokels hang on because old apportionments give them unfair advantages. The vote of a malarious peasant on the lower eastern shore counts as much as the votes of 12 Baltimoreans. But that can't last. It is not only unjust and un- democratle; it is absurd. You could say the same thing about a situation in which the hon. member for York- Scarborough (Mr. McGee) represents people whose vote is worth about 1/17 or 1/18 of the habitants of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine con- stituency. One point that needs to be made in connection with redistribution is that the problem has to be settled within the bound- aries of a province. It is, therefore, unfair to make a comparison between York-Scarbor- ough and Iles-de-la-Madeleine because in one constituency in one province you have 11,000 people and in the other in another you have 180,000 or 210,000. However, in Ontario, in contrast there is a constituency which has a population of 28,000 and which has a mem- ber in this house. This situation is fine under these peculiar circumstances, but surely we have to come at this whole problem, when you see a discrepancy such as that, with the idea of making the representation fair and just on the basis of population. The distribution of seats as between the provinces is relatively automatic, although there have been some changes and it has caused some small trouble. The people from the maritimes will say something about it because the maritimes have felt they have suffered and will suffer more. If you project the figures for redistribution you find that Nova Scotia is going to lose a seat, and per- haps the members from Nova Scotia will perk up their ears at that statement. It looks as though Newfoundland may lose a seat. New Brunswick is safe with a senatorial floor of ten and Prince Edward Island is safe with a senatorial floor of four. These facts illustrate why this issue is charged with dyn- amite in this session. Saskatchewan, if we continue with the present rules, is going to lose three seats in the next redistribution. One must remember the power we have in this house from Saskatchewan in the Prime Minister and one cabinet minister. There are the reasons why I say this redis- tribution issue is going to be before parlia- ment for the next four years. British Columbia is going to gain a seat, while Quebec is going to lose one. Alberta will perhaps gain one or two, and Manitoba is going to lose one. This means you are going to see quite a change in 1962 because of the rural-urban shift which has been extraordinary in the past few years. This problem should concern every member of parliament, and I hope that in the debate that ensues on this bill everyone will take a nonpartisan stand. Whether you believe it or not, that is the essence of re- distribution. Even though there has been some partisanship and gerrymandering, the matter is supposedly decided in the House of Com- mons on a nonpartisan basis. My idea, of course, is that this amendment will open up the way for an independent commission to undertake the task. Of course, this independent commission will have to be given a certain set of principles under which it should work, and of course parliament will have to do that. The independent commission would have to bring in a report to parliament for approval. The Prime Minister pointed out British North America Act quite clearly in 1953 and 1947 that other countries of the commonwealth have found an independent commission worked very well. If any hon. members on the government side want to look up his speeches, they are to be found in volume 4, 1952 and in volume 6, 1947. I think, actually, the Prime Minister has been as eloquent a spokesman for the independent commission as anyone in this house. I must confess that the former member for Port Arthur shrugged off the whole matter, saying the people do not care. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) took the former member to task with his favourite phrases such as "abundantly clear", or "glaringly obvious", stressing the fact that he was strongly in favour of an independent commission taking this whole question out of the area of a backbiting, impulsive and grasp- ing parliament. Since redistribution almost always is considered towards the end of a parliament, with the tremendous rush to get things through, the problem is never solved satisfactorily. I am recommending these pro- posals for study now because if we do refer the bill, as I would like, to the special com- mittee on elections, then a study of the pro- posals should be made and by the end of this year or early next year some progress could be made towards the establishment of an independent commission. The organization would be ready, with principles established on how it is to operate by 1962 when the census results will begin to be known. These proposals, of course, are along the lines of the recommendations made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. I think, as a matter of fact, I should refer to some of the things he said. In Hansard of July 15, 1947, at page 5644, he said: In 1933 the Prime Minister- that is Mr. Bennett. -pointed out the unfairness of leaving a measure like this to the end of the session. Presumably there was a desire to have the session closed at the earliest possible date, and the debate continued for four or five days. The Prime Minister on that occasion used certain words which I wish to adopt now. He pointed out that coming in at the end of the session and introducing a measure such as this is unfair and indicates a desire to eliminate members of opposing parties without enabling them to place their position before the house and the country. Now, in 1952 the hon. member for Eglinton expressed the idea that something had to be done because if another government with a big majority were in control in 1962, we would continue with the old way. I think at the time the hon. member for Eglinton was afraid the big government in control would be a Liberal government. Of course, the situa- tion has changed so that perhaps now we JUNE 12, 1958 1091 British North America Act can look forward to action by this govern- ment to give effect to the wishes and ideas of the Prime Minister. It is important that we get going on this matter as soon as possible because four years come along very quickly when you are deal- ing with something like redistribution. In 1867, as most of you probably know, the basis for deciding how the representation was to go stemmed from giving Quebec, which was neither the largest nor the smallest of the provinces, 65 seats. There was em- phasis at this time that the division should be along county lines and it was found, in the discussion to be found in the old Hansards in the statements of Sir John A. Macdonald and other leaders of the times, that the principle of representation by population both between provinces and within provinces should be to the fore. Actually it was definite as between provinces but the act is silent on how it was to be adjusted within the provinces. In order to prevent any one province from taking a real beating in the readjustment after each centennial census there was the one-twentieth clause inserted in the British North America Act which provided that the provincial ratio to the national population from one census to another, if it did not drop more than one-twentieth, would not lead to the loss of any members. This pro- vision, of course, protected some provinces. The general idea up until 1872 and the first of the John A. Macdonald gerrymanders was that the government should bring down any changes and those changes, of course, came in when British Columbia and Manitoba came into confederation. Manitoba was given four seats although it only merited by population half a seat. British Columbia was given six seats though it only merited one. Hence representation by population went out the window. In 1873 Prince Edward Island came in and it was given six seats where it was only entitled at the time to five seats. Un- fortunately for Prince Edward Island, it never got the assurance that this was an irreducible minimum whereas Manitoba was promised that the four would be a minimum until 1881 and British Columbia was promised that the six would be an irreducible minimum. So by 1873 you see representation in the House of Commons on thrce different bases. There were the four original provinces which had roughly "rep. by pop." with 190 seats. Then you had the western provinces. They were guaranteed ten. Then you had Prince Edward Island that had six but was guar- anteed none. When Sir John A. Macdonald began to operate in the 1872 redistribution he did not [Mr. Fisher.] give the opposition any opportunity really to consider the changes that were made. They were brought down and presented in the house as government business and the opposition, with much raving and ranting, had to accept them. The storm and fire was even more severe in 1882. This has been referred to as the great gerrymander or, as some people call it, the best gerrymander, when the Grits were really hived. Sir John A. Macdonald came out with a couple of statements that shot the principle of rep- resentation by population to bits. He said that representation by population from prov- ince to province was fine but within the provinces, because of county lines and town lines, there should be different interests looked after. Classes and localities should be represented and the principle of members according to population should not be the only one. So with 1882 you begin to get the development of the great discrepancy. You begin to get development of the idea that the rural voter is worth more than the urban voter. As you hon. gentlemen must be aware, the Conservatives stayed in power until the 1892 redistribution when the Liberals first brought forward from opposition the idea that there should be an independent com- mission. Sir John Thompson who was the Prime Minister at the time for the Con- servative party injected a completely new principle into dividing up the seats. That principle was to do nothing. He said that you should only interfere with representa- tions in those districts where increased popu- lation had to be provided for. In other words, you kept the status quo unless a place had developed so much, say in the west, that you gave them another constitu- ency. So you get with that attitude even more the development that the rural con- stituency remains the same, the larger urban constituency grows, but no provision is made for it and this tends to become a maxim. One of the arguments brought forward at the time by the Conservatives was that rural members of parliament at the time usually lived in town; for example, most of the members from rural Quebec were not from the rural areas. They were lawyers or solicitors or advocates in the city of Quebec or in the city of Montreal. Therefore the cities really had better representation than you might think. One of the other arguments was that in the city the people were more alert and lively and that therefore they needed less representation. Furthermore they were easier to reach. They had more educa- tional media available to them and the press HOUSE OF COMMONS1092 was more present and therefore they did not need representation as badly as did rural people. Then in 1892 the Liberals came up with the idea of a commission. Their idea was a commission of judges. This idea has been floating around the Canadian House of Commons ever since. Actually, when the Liberals got in power in 1896 they began to think about doing something about redistribu- tion and for the first time they waived the change after the census. In 1899 they brought in a bill and this was the first adjustment apart from the census. This was the first serious proposal of an outside agency to look after redistribution. Their idea was that judges should be members of the commis- sion because they not only had local con- nections and understood the counties but they were men of great integrity. The other place or the Senate tossed out these bills and the Liberals brought them back in again in 1900. Again the Conservative Senate re- fused to pass them. They claimed that this bill was a violation of the spirit of the British North America Act. So the Liberal government had to let it go until 1903 when following the census they brought in another representation act. At this time you get the very first serious provincial dispute. You begin to get the lobbies from the maritimes because Prince Edward Island was dropping drastically and New Brunswick was begin- ning to drop. So the provincial premiers or the provincial legislatures began to press for some sort of floor under their representation so that it would not sink away in relation to the tremendous growth that was taking place in the west. This came with senatorial floor of 1915. The constitutional arguments at that time were quite complex. The main point that we need to remember is that the maritime provinces lost their arguments even though they carried them to the supreme court and then over to the privy council in Great Britain. The 1903 readjustment really came up with the idea that still prevails as far as redistribution is concerned, namely the prin- ciple that it should be settled by a House of Commons committee. Prior to 1903 the whole thing was settled by the government party. After 1903 there was a small special com- mittee of the House of Commons which put the thing through. The first committee con- sisted of what we would call in slang "the big wheels". For example, Mr. Borden, who was the head of the opposition at the time was on it. Its members were almost all of cabinet minister or ex-cabinet minister rank. This principle of having representation settled by a committee of the House of Commons has continued right down until 1952 when, as British North America Act I said earlier, we had a repetitious continua- tion of the decennial hassle that comes up regularly and in the last redistribution in which the present Prime Minister figured so largely. In 1923 and 1924, with the. redistribution another idea was introduced into the House of Commons committee and that was that it should be broken up into provincial sub- committees and that the members in each province should form a committee or have representation on a committee that would de- termine the constituency boundaries and just how the division was going to be made. The whole point in connection with this system of House of Commons committees is that there is really no principle at all in- volved and I think Mr. Norman Ward in his book "The Canadian House of Commons" at page 46, sets out the whole matter quite clearly as follows: At the risk of repetition, it must be emphasized that harmony in the house committee guarantees nothing; as Mr. Mackenzie King has observed, in one of the shrewdest remarks of his long career, "anyone reading the Hansard report....must realize to how small an extent the redistribution being effected at the moment is based upon the founda- tional principle of the division of the various con- stituencies according to the general interest of the country as a whole." Although this statement was being applied specifically to the fiasco of 1933, it could be made with equal force concerning even the most peaceful of the eight redistributions which have occurred thus far. It does not necessarily follow that redistribution by a house committee is always bad; but it is in- disputable that redistribution has so far taken place with reference to none but the vaguest of principles. At one time or another in this con- tentious history, as we have seen, no less than four principles have been followed: the use of local boundary lines; the adoption of relatively large urban divisions; the establishment of compact divisions; and the equalization of population. But one or more of these principles has always been applied in relation to the wishes of a majority in the House of Commons, and when it has been expedient not to observe a principle, it has been conveniently forgotten. I see that I am approaching the end of my time. I have more material which I wished to present but I think I should cover the main representations which I believe we should keep in our minds in connection with the redistribution. If we set up an inde- pendent commission or an independent authority as recommended by this bill we should have some principles to give to the commission under which to operate and I suggest the first principle is representation by population. It has been suggested to me by one of the gentlemen of the press gallery that you should develop a formula and I hope that hon. members will look at this bill. There was introduced in 1952 by the present Senator Power a bill respecting the division 1093JUNE 12, 1958 1094 HOUSE OF COMMONS British North America Act and duties of the redistribution commission time. Let us therefore, for once, raise the and he provisionally set up in his bill an ideal whole dignity of praceedings by starting early commission and the principles under which -four years before election-and approaching it should operate. If you set up an inde- the whole matter on a rational basis sa that pendent commission the principles have to in four years' time we wili not have the be fairly hard and fast, otherwise the mem- stigma of iaoking like a buncl of rabbits, bers will not know how they are going to with ail of us standing up, shouting and jeer- operate. A House of Commons committee is ing at the government for steamrouîng and going to have to settle this whole Saskatche- having Canservative members tbrowing their wan fiasco, but this is in the future-the lauglter back at us. question of Saskatchewan dropping three These are the main reasons why I believe seats-and in the redistribution we have to we shauld give very serious consideration to decide first, is it going to be representation the bil before the house at the present time. by population. Are we going to have a Mr. Crestohi: May I ask tbe hon. member formula such as that existing in Manitoba, a question or two. I tbink be bas made a very namely seven city votes as against four rural logical case, but just what does lie mean by a votes? Are we going to have something like committee independent of the parliament of Victoria in Australia where you have 22-15-8 Canada, and daes lie not tbink that the sug- formula worked out? My own suggestion, gestion that that committee should report from looking at the question, is that we need back to parliament would bave the effect of to give that commission a principle which allows them a 30 per cent tolerance in assigning constituencies in terms of popula- Mr. Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by tion, so that we can wipe out many of these the hon. member was deait witb very ably tremendous disparities in our present system, by the Prime Minister in 1953 wben le was as bon. members will see when they look at outlining the experience in the United King- the statistics. I think the commission should dom wbere they bave an independent com- operate within the framework of this repre- mission whicb does report ta parliament and, sentation by population principle with some since the first report it brouglt in, there las such tolerance or some other principle to been very littie argument or change; suci take care of the plain fact that you cannot changes as have been made being very minor tailor every constituency in terms of popu- in nature. In Great Britain it bas worked lation and you cannot even come close to it very satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, anly in terms of making it equal in area. parliament can pass a redistribution brought However, I would like ail hon. members in by that commission. ta look et this brief whicb d-es show the Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka): trmtendous disadvantages suffered by the Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White River- bon. member wo as presented this bih that Labrador (Mr. Granger) and the bion. mem- i am opposed ta it as presented. I tink ber for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) and myself. this proposition is anther move in the direc- Ia tion of removing from parliament its inherent Finashould giuldvlikeseaisas coasidhistisnan impartial matter and I hope it will be treated rigits. I feel it is a delegatian by pariament af contrai over its wn affairs unless the deas scl by ail o meberl ba party inti body or cammittee is very cleariy defined in debate. ih Is not necessily aee pat oint the bill. My first and main objection ta theof view wbib I aM expresing here, aitho lo bil is just this; it is not clear as ta just imn then pas t e Mr. Knwle maed anm what sort of body or commission is intended amesinme taeve set pn needet cupom ta be set up ta deal witb this very important fromi the present leaders of the government party. However, it is not something wbicb C appreciate that the nohn. member for Port bas been confined to the C.C.F. graup g Mr. Arthur (Mr. Fisher) bas brought in this Power, as a Liberal member of this Huse bic in an effort ta get rid of what is known of Commans, was strongly for it and I believe as gerrymandering and I may say that there many of the present government members has been a great deai af this in the past. were for it too. In tbe riding wbich I have the honour ta The bibiagraphy will be in Hansard and represent, Parry Sound-Muskoka, the hon. Ibope that hon. members wiil follio u member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonneil) wasdefeated in 1949 as a resut of a gerrymanderand read tbe different points of v sew. and, as the ion. member who sponsored the Especially wouid I mention that almost every bie lias said, the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief- intelligent writer who bas looked at this prob- enhaker) when lie was the bon. member for lem bas laughed ta scorn members of paruv- Lake Centre had lis riding not only gerry- ment for tbeir behavipur at redistribution mandered but eiminated. Fortunately for [Mr. Fiher.] us, these circumstances only made the Prime Minister determined ta seek and win another seat. There are many other bad examples of gerrymandering, but I contend that the dangers of gerrymandering have been re- duced to a point where they are flot a seriaus issue, and I would say there are three main reasons which have brought this about. First, when there were small majorities, in the early days of this country, the changing of election boundaries even in a very limited degree could affect enaugh peaple ta change the situation in a riding. Secondly, in the early days, we had static populations. This is no longer the case. Thirdly, the days of the die-hard party followers have been re- duced or eliminated. It might be interesting ta go into the history of gerrymandering. The practice existed in Brita'n and in the United States for a good mnany years, but it feul to the lot of an American ta give it a name and ta carry it ta its ultimate extreme. He was a gentle- man by the name of Eibridge Gerry who was very promninent in the early years of the nineteenth century in the palitical circles of the United States. He was a member of congress, a governor of Massachusetts and, in 1812, Vice-President of the United States. While governor of Massachusetts hie be- came especially noted for his. ingenuity in carving up ridings ini the senatoriai districts of his state in a very unusuai manner. One such riding was carved up by taking a pocket here and leaving a pocket there in such a way that ail hîs oppanients votes were cast in one place. When the outlines of the rid- ing thus created were placed on a map it loaked like a salamander, and political op- ponients named the affair a "gerrymander" after Mr. Gerry. That is the reason for the word, and also the background against which the practice was carried on at that time. I do feel that such gerrymandering as took place in 1812 would not be tolerated at the present time. When it was carried out, it was done ta the discredit of those who were responsible. Furthermore, it is nlot always profitable, as those who carved up certain ridings priar to the general election of 1949 discovered ta their sorraw. Aside from this, f here are three practical reasans in support of this contention, as I have already mentianed. The first is that mai orities are increasing. In the early days of this country members were eiected by a very small margin of votes. Let us consider my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I find that in the first elec- tion of 1872, the majority for the successful candidate was 121. In 1878, the majarity British North~ AmeTica Act was 63, and in 1882 it was four. But since 1935 a very different picture has been presented. In that year, for instance, the majority was 2,265. In 1940 it was 1,691; in 1949 it was 1,820 and sa forth down to 1957 when the majority was 3,853. Only a few days ago the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), when outlining the history of his riding, reminded us that at the first election there an equal number of votes was cast for each of the two candidates and as a resuit of some inanoeuvring at that Urne bath were elected. For the first ten elections, the majority ta the successful can- didate neyer amounted ta more than 500 votes. However, in the eight electians since 1926 the majarity has neyer been less than 1,000. In more recent times, the majarities have been even greater. Related ta this is the second matter I mentioned-static population. The population of Canada is no longer static. Population shifts are mare frequent; travel is mare ex- tensive; immigration has changed the nature of many ridings, and a gaad many of aur immigrants are now becoming entitled ta vote. People mave mare rapidly from one area ta another. In these circumistances the deliberate gerrymandering of seats might nowadays nat even bring about the desired resuit by the time the next election rolled around. The third matter 1 mentioned concerned the fioating vote. We have noticed in recent times that people are beginning ta vote as they see things rather than as their fathers saw them, and in recent elections we have observed that when there is a swing there is a massive swing in one direction or the other. To a large extent, therefore, a gerry- mander which would gain a party a few votes would nat necessarily be enough, uniess it were terrifie in scale, ta ensure a riding for a particular candidate. Thus I say that the dangers of delîberately contrived gerry- mandering are no longer a seriaus factor. But even if this were not sa, 1 shauld stili be appased ta the bill for another reason. I arn firmly of the opinion that we already have too many gaverniment commissions, crawn campanues and boards, directing the affaîrs of Canada, making decisians which should be made by parliament or the goverfi- ment, spending large sums of money and remaining respansible ta no one for their decisians. They are independent, and the elected representatives of the people of Can- ada have no contrai over these commissions in any effective way. They have been estab- lished in very secure positions, and they have been removed from political interference. To; whom are these commissions respon- sible? The elected members of this house are 1095JUNE 12, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS British North America Act responsible to their constituents, and if they fail to carry out their duties in a satisfactory manner a very easy way to replace them is to vote against them at the next election. Whenever duties are passed on to a com- mission or to a board which is not responsible to anyone it adds just one more link to the chain which is getting away from responsible government. The enactment of the bill before us would create a body, and I quote from the bill- -independent of the parliament of Canada. As I said, the parliament of Canada repre- sents the people of Canada and each of its members is responsible to the people for its actions. It is less than 100 years since we in Canada secured what we would term respon- sible government; indeed, it is approximately only 27 years since the Statute of West- minster made us a completely self-governing, responsible country. Since that time the pro- cess toward responsible government seems to have been reversing itself. I regret the con- tinual moves that have taken us away from this position to a situation wherein we have boards, commissions and bodies governing extremely important aspects of the affairs of the country and being responsible to no one. Each step seems to be designed to take power away from the representatives of the people and I am opposed to this trend. The bill as presented does not indicate what type of body would be set up and that to my mind is the most serious weakness in it. Before parliament surrenders any of its in- herent rights I feel it must know to whom the rights are being surrendered. It must know what sort of body, commission or board is being established and it must know what type of people and how many will comprise the particular commission and what its re- sponsibilities are. By supporting this bill we would be surrendering the rights of parlia- ment without knowing to whom we were surrendering them. I would be strongly op- posed to delegating any such authority until the responsible body is clearly spelled out and even then I would want to examine closely the composition of the body to whom this authority would be delegated. I could not possibly support the bill in its present form. (Translation): Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption- Monicalm): Mr. Speaker, I am against this bill which is meant to introduce in subsection (1) of section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, the underlined words: independent of the parliament of Canada. I do not approve of amending the British North America Act. If amendments are [Mr. Aiken.] considered, let a conference be held of the provinces which gave birth to the confedera- tion pact of 1867. It 'is time to put a stop to those repeated assaults which scoff at the provinces. Since 1867, there have been about seven amendments to the constitution and, for the most part, they were made without con- sulting the parties concerned, the provinces. In 1871, for instance, the United Kingdom parliament passed an amendment granting the parliament of Canada the right to create provinces and to deal with their representa- tion in the House of Commons. I think that this amendment validated an act concerning Manitoba. In 1886, there was another amendment authorizing the federal government to form, within parliament, a representation for the territories, even if they did not enjoy pro- vincial status. I understand that this act corroborated the representation already granted to some of the territories. In 1915, another amendment aimed at in- creasing the number of senators provided that the number of representatives attributed to a province in the House of Commons be not less than the number of senators to which it was entitled. in 1943 another amendment put off until the first post-war session the redistribution which should have followed the census of 1941. Then in 1946 there was another amendment which laid down new rules governing the number of members in the House of Commons. Finally, in 1949, as part of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, there was an amendment providing for a certain representation from that province. Moreover, two orders of the Imperial Council established the representation of the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Another amendment, adopted in 1916, was designed to extend the life of parliament. In 1949, parliament amended the constitu- tion in respect of the adjustment of represen- tation in this bouse. But the government of the day should have consulted the provinces. In 1951 the British North America Act was once more amended by unilateral action, without provincial consent. However, no provision had been made in that regard in the 1867 act which would have given the federal government the right to amend the JUNE 12, 1958 constitution. And when the present govern- ment sat in opposition it made its views clearly known in the historic debate which took place during the fall session of 1949, with regard to a government proposal to amend the British North America Act in order to allow the federal government to amend the constitution on matters which were held to be of a purely federal nature. In fact, on October 17, 1949, the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, immediately proposed the following amendment on behalf of the official opposition, as is recorded in page 841 of Hansard of that date: That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor the following: "That His Excellency the Governor General in Council be requested to convoke as soon as may be possible a constitutional convention of representa- tives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights; so that such method may become the subject later of an humble address, when adopted, to His Majesty the King praying an amend- ment of the British North America Act, 1867, accordingly." Furthermore, the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) stated also, during the same debate: We are confronted here with the fundamental issue of respect for the Canadian constitution. On that issue we of the official opposition take an inflexible position that there is no right in this government or in this parliament to proceed to legislate now for the purpose of amending section 51 of the British North America Act without con- sultation with the provinces. So far as that kind of consultation is concerned, we say that in the light of history it is abundantly clear that we would not have had a united Canada and would not have had confederation had there not been some basis of agreement on the part of the initiating parties inscribed in the Quebec resolutions and later in the British North America Act. This is the basis upon which Canada came into being, and notwithstanding all the sophistry that bas been uttered in the house on the subject of the great powers of the central government I say to you, sir, that we ignore and do violence both to the letter and the spirit of con- federation by seeking, in the manner proposed by the government- -of the time, which was the Liberal government- -in the present bill and on other occasions, to ride roughshod over the British North America Act. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind hon. mem- bers of the wise statements of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe about the British North America Act. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for instance, made in this house, in 1907, a speech that has remained famous. Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine prov- 57071-3-70 1097 British North America Act inces who have entered it and I submit that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had opportunity to pass judgment on the same. I should think this is clear enough. May I also quote the words of the Hon. Ernest Lapointe, in a speech he delivered in the House of Commons in 1924: The British North America Act and the limita- tions which are imposed upon our powers, if there are any such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty, as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) has pointed out. And further: Now this treaty cannot be changed, it bas been the contention of many constitutional authorities and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper". (Text): Mr. Winch: May we have a copy of the speech now being read? Mr. Chambers: He is not reading; he is quoting. Mr. Ricard: The hon. member would not know the difference. (Translation): Mr. Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting words of former members of the House of Commons, Allow me to quote the late Hon. Ernest Lapointe who, in 1925, said in this bouse: Surely, the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper, as the neutrality treaty was made at that time. There is a way, perhaps, yes; but the only way is the friendly way, is the legal way, is the constitutional way. It is to approach the various parties to the agreement with a view to arriving at an understanding as to the changes which may be necessary and which may be agreed upon by all the parties to the pact. As I have said, I do not think there could be any other way; I believe that any arbitrary action in the matter would simply defeat its own purpose and would strike at the root of our national unity. I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end. I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, I would say that the one way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the members of the C.C.F. party wish to amend the Canadian constitution, I must say that I agree with the late Mr. Ernest Lapointe. Let the contracting parties, that is the provinces, be consulted 1098 HOUSE 0F COMMONS British North America Act and, after the matter has been discussed with An hon. Member: Is that not the way it is the federal government, if there is need for an done now? amendment, it will be brought about but, of coure, ith he grementandthe pprval Mr. Winch: The hon. member does not fully ourshe, wroihctesareet.n hapo realize what he said. I have had the bonour of. th ae r proinc s o htIdia eo now of being a member of this House of Mr.s SpeI ae toho that Idspp re o Commons for only five years. Prior to that I thisbih, lae othed the wods f great was 20 years in the legislature of British Libeal eadrs f te pat wo sate ~'Columbia and in that 20 years I was twice this house that no amendrnent sbould be made named as a member of a redistribution bill to the British North America Act before committee. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, consultation with the provinces. and ail bon. members, that of ail the com- Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal mittees convened by parliament the dirtiest government should însist on setting Up a and the rottenest and the mast difficult to be commission whose function would be to on is the redistribution bill committee, and I study the readjustmerit of the representation have been on one twice in British Columbia. in the House of Commons. You can be as altruistic as you like; you As fr asmy onsttuecy i cocernd, can be as eloquent, sir, as they want ta be on Mr. Speaker, I should like to express thisth hesi otebue,1a tlinyu wish: I would like it to be kept as it is: that tbe dirtiest, rottenest job that a rnan in one of the finest. 0f course, it is one of the parliament can have is to be a member of a largest in the country but, just the same, I redistribution bill committee. sbould like it to remain as it is, since I had A o.Mme:Yusi ht the bonour of being a candidate there and A o.Mme:Yusi ht while the former member, Mr. Breton, had Mr. Winch: I said it and I amn repeating it. been elected with a rnajority of 15,200 votes, Yes, you can even be a C.C.F. member, the people of my constituency gave me one and it is a rotten job, because as a member of 6,372. For those reasans, Mr. Speaker, I of parliament and a member of the cornrittee should like ta express the very legitirrate you have the job of outlining tbe area of wish of keeping my constituency intact canstituencies; the number of vaters in con- although it is one of the largest in the stituencies and how many members there country. shahl be-it is bell. I know it. Do not tel 1 am opposed, therefore, ta this bill, because me that it is not the same on the federal it is at variance with fundamental principles; basis as it is on the provincial. Irrespective if the Canadian constitution is ta be modified of your party representatian you are, first some day, it would be logical and indispen- of ail, faced witb a comrnittee that bas ta sable that the provinces be consulted. work out the representation on a logical (Text):basis. As a member of the committee you (Text):want to protect you own constituency and Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. your own party. As soan as the comrnittee Speaker, I strongly support the bill intro- submits its first report, then every member duced by the hon. member for Port Arthur of every party cornes ta members of the (Mr. Fisher). I appreciate the rernarks made committee and wants changes made bere and by the hon. member wbose constituency I there. Let us be honest, you should know cannot recali, and I would have liked to this is a fact. know exactly what was said by the bon. The bon. member spoke about gerryrnander- member wbo bas just taken bis seat. Ail I ing. 0f course, any time you bave a parlia- can say is:-and 1 apologize for the way I say mentary committee that bas ta deal witb tbe it-Monsieur l'Orateur, je ne peux pas parler breaking up of constituencies and the re- français. I understand that be opposes the alignment of canstituencies, there is gerry- bill. mandering. Surely, that is what we all This bill is not only an interesting one but shouîd want ta get away fram. We do in it is one wbîch is required in aur country. the C.C.F., and we hope the government and Tbe hon. member who spoke priar ta the hast officiai apposition do too. The only way this speaker said that it was taking away the can be accomplîsbed is ta bave the work done power of parliarnent. It is doing no suce by a comrnittee, comphetehy outside of tbing. It is asking tbat as far as tbe .estab- almet lishment of vating rigbts of constituencies arepaiant concerned it shahl be deterrnined on a non- Is there anyone in tbis Hause of Commons political basis. wba would dare stand in bis place and say [Mr. Pigeon.] that he does not want an unbiased, scientific analysis of Canada, a scientific basis for representation in this House of Commons? This cannot be accomplished except by people not directly connected with politics. If any rnember of the government, the opposition or the C.C.F. tells me it can, I say he is a liar because it cannot. Personal prejudice, constituency prejudice and party prejudice all enter the picture because we are all human and subject to human frailties. I would not like to close my seat after 25 years and no other member would either whether he is here 25 years or only two months. Mr. Halpenny: You will get a pension. Mr. Winch: I am honest; are you honest? Mr. Halpenny: I have on a red carnation, how could I be honest? Mr. Winch: I have been here in Ottawa and in Victoria for 25 years. Twice during that time I have been on redistribution com- mittees. I say, as a member of the C.C.F. and believing I am honest, that you cannot be honest on that kind of committee. You cannot be honest, because personal interest, personal prejudice and party interest all enter the picture. An hon. Member: Is that so? Mr. Winch: Are you afraid to hear from an honest man? Mr. Ricard: You cannot be honest without being in the C.C.F. An hon. Member: Are you sure about that? Mr. Ricard: We can be honest; we have been honest all the time. Mr. Habel: Are you sure about that? Mr. Ricard: You are sure of that. Mr. Winch: I did not catch what my hon. friend said, but I will say this. When the vote on this bill is taken, I intend to watch very carefully to see where he stands to be counted. Mr. Ricard: You stand just because there is enough desk around you. Mr. Winch: I do not see any halo around you. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): Order; I must remind hon. members that they rnust address the chair and not each other. Mr. Winch: One of our members has in- troduced a bill asking this House of Com- mons, in plenty of time, to establish a basis for representation in the house by constitu- encies and by provinces by a completely 57071-3-70J British North America Act scientific analysis, completely free of any political interest whatever. I believe it will be 1962 before the bill can come into effect. The final bill concerning representation by provinces and by constituencies must be passed by this House of Commons and the other place. The final authority rests with the House of Commons and the other place. This bill now before us requests that the law be amended so the decision shall be made on a nonpolitical basis. I fail completely to understand why a member of any party in this house could object to that scientific, nonpolitical basis. The final authority rests with the House of Commons, and I sincerely hope that the members of this house, when it comes to a matter of this nature being nonpartisan, will support the bill. Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough): Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks concerning this bill I should like to deal in some detail with some of the matters raised by the hon. member who preceded me and, I must confess, some of the rather astonishing implications, perhaps philosophical implica- tions, of the comments that he made. I recall, in particular, his fervent, moving comments concerning the dirty, rotten redistribution committee on which he said he had the privilege of serving while a member of the British Columbia legislature. Might I suggest in passing that it seems to me rather typical of those who occupy the eight lonely seats in the corner- Mr. Peters: They are never lonely. Mr. McGee: -that when they are handed something which is dirty and rotten, accord- ing to their own definition, their first reaction is to pass the buck to somebody else. The somebody else to whom these dirty, rotten and other tasks are passed has always fascinated me about the philosophy of this little group in the corner; because in passing these things, things such as the control of the economy and other such matters that this group advance as their solution to the prob- lems of Canada today, the powers they im- pute to the men who will make up these powers and to whom they pass their dirty rotten jobs from time to time, are incapable of solving them. For instance, if I may be allowed a "for instance", who is going to produce this planned economy? Mr. Fisher: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member is far off course. Mr. Hamilton (York West): Speaking to the point of order, may I say this. Surely the hon. member is allowed to lay the groundwork for JUNE 12, 1958 1099 British North America Act what he intends to say in connection with this debate. My hon. friends have not even given him that chance. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): I felt that the hon. member was laying the ground- work. Therefore, if he will continue we will save time. Mr. Pickersgill: With a tar brush. Mr. McGee: I notice that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is protesting. Is he doing so on behalf of this little group in the corner? Mr. Pickersgill: I was saying that the hon. member seemed to be laying his groundwork with a tar brush. That was a purely objective observation. An hon. Member: You prof ess to be a judge, do you? Mr. Pickersgill: A member of the public. Mr. McGee: The other comment which in- terested me-and I hope no hon. members will object to my commenting on the remarks of the member who preceded me, much less the hon. member himself;-it seems to me that that is the purpose of debate in this house, namely to comment on matters re- ferred to in the speech of the member who precedes one in this debate or in any debate for that matter. Mr. Pickersgill: One irrelevancy deserves another. Mr. Bell (Carleton): There is no better judge of that. Mr. McGee: As to the hon. member for eonavista-Twillingate, when the history of this country is written and the students of future years examine Hansard they will won- der.who in the world this wonderful person was who presumed to participate in virtually every other member's speech in the house. Mr. Habel: They may find it is you. Mr. Winch: In view of what the bon. mem- ber has said, is he going to comment on my remarks that politics should have no connec- tion with redistribution? I have been saying that for a while now. Mr. McGee: Mr. Speaker, I have been honestly trying to come to my point. My friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil- lingate, who seems to be incapable of remain- ing silent for more than about 15 minutes at any given time, has interrupted. Two members from the lonesome eight in the corner have interrupted. I should very much like to get on to the body of my re- marks. This statement is my final comment on the philosophy of your group. I think it [Mr. Hamilton (York West).] has been said far better than I can say it by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) who said "he represents what I call the socialist doctrine of the assumption of the monopoly of virtue." Yet I find it is in curious contrast to the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that we are all human, implying that there was something sort of nasty about this process of the state of being, a statement with which I do not mind telling my bon. friend I do not agree. Mr. Winch: Are you not human? Mr. McGee: In acknowledging that fact I do not associate myself with the characteristics of the hon. member who originated the state- ment. We are all human beings, yes, but dif- ferent human beings. Mr. Winch: Have you no frailties? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): Order. I must again remind hon. members that they should and must address the chair. Mr. Winch: I will address you, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. friend prepared to sing his own praises now and to say that he has no frail- ties of a human being? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): That is not a question, I do not think. Will the hon. mem- ber continue? Mr. Winch: It is a question that he will not answer. Mr. McGee: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be an unnecessary question. An hon. Member: He wants you to confess. Mr. McGee: In pursuing this matter of commenting on the content of the remarks of the speaker who preceded me, my effort is obviously not destined to be too successful in view of the number of interruptions. I think every hon. member of this house agrees that there is a need to achieve a fair redis- tribution. Following along with the idea of this matter of fairness I think it behooves us tn examine the actions of past parliaments which dealt with redistribution, to observe the degree of fairness which they exhibited towards certain political decisions, not the least of which was the gerrymandering of the former riding of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to examine the record of those former governments in such matters. This is like many of the matters, resolutions, private bills and motions being put forward by the lonesome eight. I think they are fighting a lost battle; that they are protesting where protest is no longer required; that they are in the words of a certain gentleman who wrote an article re- cently in an edition of the Canadian Journal HOUSE OF COMMONS1100 JUNE 12, 1958 of Economics and Political Science, "be- calmed in a protest movement". They make noises similar to those of bygone days but their point and purpose is lost. Certain interesting notions manifested themselves in the redistribution of 1952, such as the notion that the ridings of the party leaders-and this one intrigued me-should be left unhampered. In other words, certain basic principles or governing principles were being laid down then with a series of notable exceptions. I was going to deal with the specifics of this matter in far more detail but owing to the fact that I have been inter- rupted on such frequent occasions I find that my time is considerably diminished. However, I will deal just with this basic notion, if you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, of the position of the opposition parties in this parliament. It may be that this parliament will be responsible for redis- tribution and then again it may not. It is by no means a certainty, as I understand the facts and as I have studied this matter, that redistribution will occur before the next election. This certainly leads me te a side issue, Mr. Speaker, but if you will allow I would say that I do not think an inde- pendent body or group can make the specific decisions concerning the riding boundaries in local areas. The problem of defining specific boundaries must be within the control of persons who know more about these matters than anybody else. This goes along with the notion of the C.C.F. that we should have experts to deal with these things. I do not know about the hon. member who bas just taken his seat, but I consider myself as something of an expert on my own riding and I think this is true of every member in every quarter of this house. Who, better than you, is qualified to make political value judgments about boundaries and possible changes in your riding; who, by self-interest, by political education or otherwise, is better qualified for that task? I would remind the hon. mem- ber who sponsored this motion and those in his group who are supporting it that this is the essential weakness in handing over, holus-bolus, to an independent commission responsibility for specific knowledge of this kind. I read in Norman Ward's article in the Journals of 1953 of the many complex problems which manifested themselves at that time and what occurs to me is that an independent body, agreed to by members of this house, should meet now or very shortly, not to effect redistribution but to lay down certain general principles, acceptable to every member and every group in this house as far as such agreement is possible. British North America Act Having agreed upon those principles which affect the limiting of percentages, lost seats in provinces and diminishing representation in relation to the total, and the problems which are obviously going to manifest themselves as mentioned in the Gordon report for ex- ample with respect to the 15 metropolitan areas which in 1951 had 5,190,000 inhabitants and which by 1980 will have approximately 12 million inhabitants, these and similar problems should all be considered by such a body. There are statistics and facts avail- able for the use of such a body to enable them to agree on the basic redistribution principles. Where I part company with my friend in the corner is at this point. I believe that having laid down these principles, having achieved concurrence in this house, then the matter should come before the house with respect to questions of detail. Yes, it is going to be give and take; yes, it is going to be horse trading; yes, it is going to be a lot of things, but I do not think it is going to be dirty or rotten or filthy, and I do not think the ugly side of human nature is going to manifest itself in quite the degree sug- gested by my hon. friend. We in this house must ultimately be the masters of our own political future, and I would suggest, particularly to my bon. friends in the corner, that they rest easy because if the treatment they receive as a result of re-distribution is consistent with the treatment they receive, have received and will receive from this government-with, mind you, the largest majority in the history of this country-in terms of allotment of speaking time, in terms of committees and the increased powers of committees, then they will come out of redistribution in a far better position than any other opposition group which bas ever been represented in this house. Mr. Fisher: May I say, Mr. Speaker that I hope the hon. gentleman who has just sat down does not believe the bill was in- troduced because we thought we were going to be badly treated. (Translation): Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela- naudiere): Mr. Speaker, if we refer to the B.N.A. Act, we note that the fathers of confederation, in order to ensure a distribution of electoral seats which might really meet the needs of the people, provided under section 8 for a compulsory ten-year census, and under section 51, for a distribution of electoral seats based on such census. 1102 HOUSE OF COMMONS British North America Act The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. part of a constituency and adding it to Fisher), in introducing his bill, would like another one. Some people cannot understand somehow to suggest to the house that the the real meaning of a census in this regard distribution of electoral seats should be done and, consequently, they cannot realize why in a manner completely different from the such a change is made. one now in use. I am in full agreement with Well, the establishment of an independent my hon. friend the member for Joliette- body or commission which could be made L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) when uD of economists or surveyors appointed by he explained a moment ago that any amend- the provincial and federal governments would ment to the B.N.A. Act should be a matter be one way of ensuring a fairer distribution for unanimous consent by all provinces and of constituencies. As regards the number of the federal government, because it is a pact. constituencies in each of the provinces, the On the other hand, the bill submitted to this ten rovinces would have to be consulted house aims at finding a remedy or, at least a method of implementing section 51 of the of such a commission. Besides, the house B.N.A. Act. And the hon. member for Port would always have the power to accept or Arthur wants the distribution of seats in the house to be handled by a body or rather by A sch a report. a commission independent of parliament. Ats is trition of eetoral To me it is inconceivable that hon. mem- one or more sub-committees to consider the bers of this house should not be called upon need, the advantages or the necessity of re- to give their own views on redistribution, distributing the ridings. Whoever we are, we because they, more than anyone should be are human, and naturally we tend to protect familiar with the overall pattern of this members of our own party who might per- country, as they are representing all its rid- baps lose a large section of their riding. S0 ings. On the other hand, I am not in favour much so that a member, with no iii intention of creating a body or commission, which perhaps, might accede to the request of a col- would not come under the immediate juris- league wbich however might not truly meet diction of the House of Commons. the economic situation. This is in fact an opinion expressed some We are 265 members coming from difierent years ago by the Right Hon. William Lyon parts of Canada and I do fot think that any Mackenzie King in 1933. If we refer to the one member can be familiar with the eco- official record of this house for 1952, pages nomic needs of every part of the country. A 3897 and following, we will see that there committee made up of 40 or 50 members was a discussion in the house on this matter would not be able to study the real needs when there was before it a proposed redis- of the country as a whole and, as I said a tribution of seats. At that time, as previously, moment ago, this committee could instinctively all party leaders were unanimous in sug- make decisions which would not be in the gesting the setting up of a commission or interest of the population at large. Further- body of that type. Some hon. members even more, in these serious times, when our parlia- went so far as to suggest the setting up of mentary institutions seem to be directly a committee composed of judges. I cannot attacked by ideologies contrary to our own see hon. judges, who are removed from it is our utmost duty to try to improve that politics, having to travel from one point to situation in ordor that this need which comes another in this country in order to carry out up every ten years may be truly met accord- a work of a purely political nature. ing to local conditions and according to the I believe that all members of the opposition, population of each of the electoral ridings. among whom are hon. members of the C.C.F. As I said a few moments ago, we could party, as well as members of the party in appoint economists or land surveyors who power, are unanimous in looking for a solu- would study the main reasons for a certain tion which would be such as to make it number of electors to be included in one clearer to the Canadian people why such and electoral constituency, rather than in another. such change is being made during the redis- I believe that the members of parliarent tribution of electoral seats. The people are \ould be the true spokesmen of the people not sufficiently informed on the reasons that they represent because, at the present time, would justify a committee of the house to some constituencies are too often made up make certain changes such as, lopping off in large part of a labour population side by [Mr. Paul.] JUNE 12, 1958 side with a rural population. The mentality and the needs of each of the group compos- ing those constituencies are often quite dif- ferent and there might be some advantage in distributing the seats in such a way that the urban population of one constituency be 25 per cent higher than its rural population. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur deserves a detailed discussion. The opinions I am expressing tonight are not personal opinions; they are the consequence, the result of re- search I made in different speeches delivered on the matter. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this bill de- serves our attention because the difficulty of ensuring an equitable distribution of elec- toral seats in any country is here complicated by the necessity of taking into account the various economic and social interests of the different racial groups, the growth of our population and its movements, and of making allowance, in the cities, for the economic con- ditions and, in the country, for new areas. In spite of the evident and legitimate good- will of all those members who would sit on the committee entrusted with the task of studying the redistribution of Commons seats, I fail to see how the solutions they would put forward would really satisfy the needs of the various groups in this country. As things stand, hon. members must speak on behalf of their constituents. Now these problems are different, and for this reason I do feel that it would be better to set up an independent commission. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I support the bill moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur, provided that the commission that might be established be responsible to the House of Commons for its work so that the house may have the final say and even give orders with respect to the kind of research to be made in order that redistribution in the future may be more to the advantage of all and each of the voters of this country. (Text): Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence- St. George): Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have before us this evening a most important sub- ject. There can be few things more im- portant in a democracy than trying to assure for the people an adequate reasonable and equitable representation in the legislature. British North America Act I would like to congratulate the hon. mem- ber for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for bringing this matter to our attention once more. I also wish to commend him on the great amount of research that he has obviously done into the history and background of redistribution as it has been practised in this country in the past and as it is practised in other countries. The particular method that this bill pro- poses to use to change our system of re- distribution is one of amendment to the British North America Act. I would imagine that in choosing this method the hon. member had in mind creating something of per- manence. Section 51 of the British North America Act is one of those sections that is susceptible of amendment in Canada by this house. In the meeting of the special committee of this house on redistribution in 1952 Dr. P. M. Ollivier, parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, noted that the British North America Act, No. 2, 1949, introduced an amendment to section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867 which relates to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. He explained that by this amend- ment it was made lawful for the parliament of Canada to amend the Canadian constitu- tion with certain exceptions which are enumerated in the amendment. Sections 51, 51(a) and 52 do not fall within these excep- tions and can, therefore, be amended by the federal parliament. The point that should be noted is that we can amend the act at this time to create the commission the hon. member seeks to have established but there is nothing to prevent a future parliament from amending it again to revert to the old system or to introduce another system. The law as it reads today is adequate to provide for the setting up of a commission for redistribution, as I under- stand it. Section 51(1) of the British North America Act provides in effect that on the completion of each decennial census the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons may be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to certain rules relating to the proportionate representation of the provinces. The idea of the hon. member for Port Arthur is to remove this right from the powers of parliament. I submit this is im- possible and that the amendment, itself being amendable by parliament as I have said, would not have that effect. The subject British North America Act matter and principle of this bill have great merit and I feel that perhaps a great deal of reform could be usefully introduced in our electoral institutions. I hope that a com- mittee of this house will soon be empowered to look into the subject of the Canada Elec- tions Act and the question of redistribution. As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, the subject of redistribution has plagued-I was going to say succeeding gov- ernments, but it has really plagued succeed- ing oppositions down through the years. I come from a riding which has shrunk since the last redistribution. There has been a great deal of changing of residences into com- mercial properties, widening of streets and other things involving the removal of resi- dential properties. Under any system of redistribution I imagine that the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George would be pro- foundly affected. However, I feel I must agree with what was said earlier by an hon. member to the effect that if the day has not passed when great advantage can be gained for a party by control of redistribution it certainly is well on its way to having gone. The introduction and development of mass communication sys- tems which brings the voices of leaders of the various parties to people all across the country has served to eliminate what in so many cases could be referred to as safe seats or protected pockets of people. I do not anticipate much objection when the time comes for redistribution on a fair and equit- able basis. Of course, it would be impossible to redistribute the seats in this house in a manner that would make everybody happy, but on the basis of what has been said in this debate I believe that the hon. member for Port Arthur may be assured that when this matter comes up, as it no doubt will-and I hope along with him that it comes up soon before the fire horses begin to hear the bells of another election-he will find in evidence the mood that has been expressed in the speeches we have heard tonight-one of give and take and fair play for all concerned-and it is possible that a commission, better de- fined than that proposed in his bill, will be established. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? Mr. Fisher: How naive can you be? BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman who is lead- ing the house if the business which was indicated last evening will be the business for tomorrow? Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. Unfortunately, the business which was indicated last evening, the continued debate on NORAD, will not go on tomorrow. The Prime Minister, you will recall, adjourned the debate. Due to the pres- ence of a very distinguished guest tomorrow, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, our Prime Minister will be very busy and un- fortunately will not be able to continue. Mr. Pickersgill: Could the minister indicate when the Prime Minister proposes to con- clude the debate on NORAD? Mr. Brooks: I could not give a definite indication, but some time next week. Mr. McIlraith: What about the business for Monday? Mr. Brooks: That will be announced to- morrow. Mr. Winch: Mr. Speaker, before you ad- journ, may I ask if in view- Some hon. Members: Order. Mr. Winch: -of the unfortunate situation of a week ago it is the intention to ring the bells tomorrow morning to summon bon. members to the chamber to hear the remarks of our distinguished visitor? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): That was announced by Mr. Speaker today. The bell will sound at 9.50 a.m. Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace): You should come down and listen to us some time, Harold. At ten o'clock the house adjourned, with- out question put, pursuant to standing order. 1104 HOUSE OF COMMONS ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The f ollowing answers, depasited with the Clerk af the house, are printed in the officiai repart af debates pursuant to standing order 39: MARCEL GRENIER Question No. 47-Mr. ]Rouleau: 1. Was Mr. Marcel Grenier appointed to a per- manient position by the civil service commission as auditor in the office of the district auditor's office of the unemployment insurance commission et St. Jerome. Quebec, in October, 1952? 2. Was Mr. Grenier dismissed in July, 1956? 3. If Sa, on what grounds? 4. Was an arder in council passed pursuant ta section 52, Civil Service Act. chapter 48, R.S.C., 1952? Answer by: Han. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister ai Labour): 1. Yes, effective September 1, 1952. 2. Yes, effective July 5, 1956. 3. Failure ta comply with instructions with regard ta travelling expense accounits. 4. No. RADIOAcTIVITY TESTS Question No. 59-Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1. Have recent tests been made In the level of radioactivity with regard ta permissible limits? Questions 2. Do these permissible limits correspond to those laid down by the national committee on radiation protection and measurement in the United States? 3. Are tests made of samples of milk ta determine whether or not radioactivity exceeds the maximum permissibie concentration for regular consumption? 4. According to the latest tests In Canada, what bas been the concentration of strontium 90 found in milk samples? 5. Have other foods been selected for purposes of teating radioactivity levels In Canada? Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith : .Mr. Speaker, I find that there is ,volurninous corresponden 'ce which wîll take some time to have copied. I have no doubt that the hon. member already has copies of the correspo ndence he requires. Mr. Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has thehon, gentleman himself read the correspondence? Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker,' that is, a very personal matter. SUPPLY The bouse in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair. DEPARTMENT. 0F PUBLIC WORKS 3~28. General administration, $8.536.892. The Chairman: The Department of Public Works, vote No. 328; this item will be found on page 67 of the blue book, the details on :page 457. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, 1 must begin by apologizing to the minister for my regret- table and unavoidable absence last Friday; but in my capacity as the member for one of the constituencies in Newfoundland I feit that it was desirable to visit my constituency. An hon. Member: For a change. Mr. Pîckersgill: While I was there I had an opportunity to investigate the speed with which -certain of the public works were being carried on in that province by the hon. gentleman's departmnent. I was rather astonished, I must say, on reading the min- ister's opening statement in Hansard for last Friday, which 1 have done rather carefully, to find that the minister was taking great credit to himself and to the present govern- ment for the acceleration of the works that are being carried on across the country by his department. I would not presume to express any view about acceleration in most parts of the country, but 1 do know that in the province of Newfoundland, where we -have had what I arn told is one of the earliest springs on record and where there would have been an opportunity to get ahead with work very early this year, there is a deplorable absence of starts on any of the Public works about which I was able to inquire. I must say I arn very pleased that the hon. gentleman has seen fit to make provi- sion for certain works in the town of Bona- vista, works that are very badly needed, works that were planned by the preceding administration. Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): And neyer proceeded with further. Siipply-Piub-c Works Mr. Pickersgill: I will corne to that in a moment if the hon. gentleman can posseas his soul. in patience. I noticed that the min- ister al$o made a good many references to .the St. John's harbour development, about which I intend to.say a word shortly. 'The one thing that is conspicuous, about the St, John's harbour development is that so far as I can see nothing whatever is happening about it outside of the newspapers, where there is plenty happening. *Now, sir, I think.there is no doubt that ini one way the minister's statement as. found on page 901 of. Hansard for Friday last is quite correct. When he talked about accel- erated construction, I think there is no doubt that is true in this very limited -sense. I believe it is common knowledge-I do not think the minister would, deny this for a moment-that when the present administra- tion took office last June they thought the boom was going to continue and they hoped that by stopping public.works wherever they could, decelerating wherever they could and slowing things down generally, they could make an apparent saving and justify the dlaims they had made during the 1957 elec- Ition campaign that they could save hall a billion dollars. I give the minister full credit for realizing, around October or November,, tha-t this was a very unwise thing to have done, and about October or November the governient very belatedly began to rush ahead with those projects which had been delayed, in some cases for three or four months. The con- sequence was that they were able to show quite a considerable record of activity in the winter months, activity that should have taken place last summer. In that sense, and in that limited sense only, the minister can dlaim some credit for accelerated construc- tion. I think the minister's dlaim, also found on page 901, that 97 Per cent of the allotments for the year 1957-58 had been spent, is a very creditable record indeed. I think it is a remarkable achievement. In my opinion it is a great credit to the efficiency of the department and its officiais, and ail the greater credit to them because of the pause last summer. But I should like to remind the members of the committee that these estimates, of which. 97 per cent was spent, were the estimates of the Liberal government of last year; and what the minister said at page 901 is a great and deserved tribute to the administration of the department by Hon. Robert Winters and to the care taken in treasury board by Hon. Walter Harris in seeing that honest estimates were made. There can be no possible credit to the govern- JUNE 13. 1058 illi HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works ment except-and I give them this gladly- credit for rather belatedly going ahead and carrying out that Liberal program. It is also well known that at the time the estimates were prepared a year ago last December-I refer to the last estimates prepared by the Liberal government-it was realized that there was still a great deal of private construction going on in this country of a character and volume which gave grounds for concern about its infiationary effects, and that the view taken by Mr. Harris and con- curred in by all his colleagues was that only essential public works should be undertaken, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps at times in the past, in years when there was an elec- tion, governments had not taken that view. In the light of that fact and in the light of the fact that in 1957 there was so much private construction in contemplation-most of which, in fact was carried out in 1957, as the figures for the whole year show-it seems to me that the increases in the estimates for 1958-59 are very disappointing indeed, be- cause we were led to expect something different. Perhaps it does not matter what we in the opposition were led to expect, but the country was led to expect, and millions of people in this country were led to believe, by the speeches particularly of the Prime Minister, that we were going to have something entirely new, something entirely different in the way of a public works program to meet the cur- rent recession which the Prime Minister dis- covered only in January but which was known to the rest of the country as early as Novem- ber of last year. We were led to believe that we were not going to get a public works program of the character which had been carried on in boom days, in the Liberal days, namely a program of the ordinary essential works. They must be done, of course and there is all the more reason for doing them now than there was a year ago. But we were led to believe that some vast new pro- gram which was going to deal effectively with unemployment was going to be presented to this parliament at the earliest possible date. When the Minister of Public Works very graciously agreed to have his estimates come up for consideration first, I think we hoped that we were going to see the unveiling of what was to be the realization of stage one of the "vision". But what do we get? We get just the same ordinary routine public works, with practically no acceleration at all and with practically no substantial increase in their volume. I have made an examination of the estimates, and in this matter I perhaps have an advantage that some hon. members on this side of the house may not have, because [Mr. Pickersgill.] I served on the treasury board for a number of years and therefore possess a little back- ground information about this matter. On examination of the estimates one can see very clearly that there is in them nothing new at all that was not in the planning stage, and well known to be in the planning stage, over a year ago. Of course the hon. member for St. John's West admitted that quite honestly the other day, and we give him full credit for his candor. Mr. Browne (St. John's West): That was in another debate which was finished. Mr. Pickersgill: I am not sure that his colleagues were altogether pleased by it. That fact is apparent not merely as to the works that are in the estimates to be done this year, but I looked very carefully over that list of works the minister mentioned at page 907, at the bottom of the first coluin and the top of the second column. Again I am not going to talk about things that I really do not know about. In New- foundland it has been suggested that a federal building to provide accommodation for the unemployment insurance commission, and for the family allowances branch, is contemplated. Of course the minister knows perfectly well that that building was contemplated over a year ago as another step in the provision for accommodation for federal departments, and it was to be phased to begin about the time the present customs building would be well on the way to completion. At that time I happen to know that a fisheries building was also in contemplation. Anyone who knows anything about the present accommodation of the Department of Fisheries in St. John's knows that a fisheries building is urgently needed. It is perhaps even more urgently needed than an unemploy- ment insurance building, though they are both badly needed. It would have seemed reason- able to have accelerated some of these plans a good deal more than there is any indication of being done here. Then I look at the buildings referred to for Ottawa. Not only have all these buildings, to my knowledge, been in the early planning stages; some of them were in rather ad- vanced planning stages. The national library is in an advanced stage of planning. It is true that some of these buildings could have been begun a good deal earlier but for one thing. I think perhaps I should interject a word at this moment so the minister will be saved the trouble of getting up and making the constant retort from the other side of the house, "Why didn't you do it when you were in office?" I will tell the minister-and 1112 he knows it perfectly well-why we did not do a great many of these things when we were in office. We did not do many of these things when we were in office because we feit that only the most essential building should be done at a time when there was a great private building boom, and that the governmnent should not be competing with other builders in bidding up the cost of building. It was f elt that there were a considerable number of these projects that were nlot of the first urgency, though they were important and urgent, which should be carried on as soon as they were needed in order to maintain the level of construction and the level of em- ployment in construction. There is no doubt that one of the reasons the minister's department was able to spend 97 per cent of its allotment this past year is that unhappily there has been, as we al know, some decline in prîvate construction, especiaily latterly, and it was therefore some- what easier to get on with somne of these works than it was at a time when it was hard to find architects, hard to get engineers, and hard to get on with many of these proj- ects about which we ail know something. The minister made a reference in my ab- sence, which I found very touching, to the Wesleyville post office. Mr. Green: It is started. Mr. Pickersgill: Yes; I knorw the Wesley- ville post office is started, but unhappily a year later than it would have been started if a certain event had not taken place on June 10 of last year. Some hion. Memlers: Oh, oh. Mr. Green: What ingratitude. Mr. Pickersgill: I ar nflt ungrateful; in- deed, I arn extremely grateful to the minister for reluctantly and belatedly going ahead with this project. But during the election campaign my opponient, a very distinguished Newfoundlander, promised that he would have this building built. He did not say he would have it buiît whether he was elected or nlot; I will be f air. He said he would have it built. He also said he would have a post office built at Badger's Quay. If the rumeurs I heard in Newfoundland are correct the min ister is going ahead with that project, and I congratulate him upon that fact too. Mr. Green: You may make me change my mind. Mr. Pickersgill: During the election cam- paign when I was in Wesleyville I happened to come across the plans and blueprints for the building at Wesleyville, and they were dated May, 1957. They were all ready for the calling of tenders at that time, but the Supply-Public Works whole matter was delayed until the autum and then ail through the winter. It was an open winter and the building could have been bujit, and we could have been getting ahead with the Badger's Quay building this year if the plans had nlot been delayed. However, as the minister has said, I must flot be un- grateful and I arn very grateful that he is going ahead with it now. I will be even more grateful for the building at Badger's Quay. ,Before his estimnates have passed through committee I intend to give the minister the names of four or five other places in my riding where postal revenues are roughly equivalent to those at Wesleyville, Badger's Quay and Glovertown-where the previous government built a very good building-se the minister will have something to add to his sheif. I would now like to say something about St. John's harbour, to which the minister alse referred in his speech on a couple of occa- sions. I would first like to point out a con- tradiction which perhaps the minister himself did not realize. At page 902 of Hansard for June 6, in the second column, the minister said the following: The IAberal governent had had a report on a harbour project for St. John's and did nothing about it. Now we have $1 million in the estimates this year. Then at page 904 the minister said: The total amount of the St. John's. Newfound- land harbour development, $12 million, is not in the estirnates. I pointeci out that $1 million was in the estimates. The point I arn making is simply that In most cases, if flot in every case. these works would flot have been proceeded with this year under ordinary circumastances, but in order to make work the government is going ahead wtth them. The minister says in one place that the Liberals did nothing about it and implies that we ought to have done something about it, and in the next place, within the same haîf hour, the minister says he would not have gone alhead with it either if there were ordinary circumstances, and the only reason he is going ahead is to provide employment under the unusual circumstances which have developed since October last. Even the Minister of Public Works cannot have it both ways. The fact of the matter 15, of course, that this St. John's harbour development-and 1 give the minister f ull credit for his part in this development-was undertaken by Mr. Winters on his own personal initiative and I well remember going across the harbour in a boat with him when he pointed out the foreshore and indicated the kind of ideas he thought ought to be developed there. This is very well known in St. John's. At every stage this development has been JUNE 13, 1958 1113 1114 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Supply-Public Works proceeded with just as rapidly as it reason- ably could be proceeded with-by both governments. I do flot, in what I say with respect to this matter, wish to inject any note of con- troversy which is flot already there. How- ever there is, as the minister knows, a dispute in St. John's as to whether this is the best way to deveiop the harbour, and I want to say in the most non-controversial way I can something about that dispute. First, I must say there is a great deal of disappointment in St. John's-and this was refiected in an editorial the other day in the Sunday Herald -over the fact that there is no work being done on the harbour, and no evidence that work will start on the harbour at an early date. I was rash enougb to say during the election campaign that, in my opinion, there would be no substantial employment, except for lawyers and those concerned witb the acquisition of property, on the harbour development during 1958. 1 will be very happy if I turn out to be wrong, but I do flot think I will. At the rate the government is now proceeding that will be the situation. But to return to the controversy about the harbour developrnent, I do not pose as an expert. Everybody who remembers those terrible years between 1940 and 1945 knows how important St. John's harbour was to the whole cause of freedom during that period and how important it is that St. John's harbour sbould be developed as a defence measure, if for no other reason, in such a fashion that it will be of the maximum ad- vantage, not merely to Newfoundland and to St. John's but to the whole country, in the event of another wartime emergency. 0f course St. John's is a very small barbour, even in peacetime, but we hope the steady increase in the population of Newfoundland and in the development of resources will mean that the barbour of St. John's will become increasingly busy. It is terribly im- portant, therefore, to make quite sure that whatever development does take place will provide the maximum amount of space for berthing and for manoeuvring in the harbour. Although I arn a ship owner I do not, as I say, pose as an expert in these matters; but as the owner of a vessel I am naturally somewhat concerned that there should be adequate space for the berthing of ail the vessels which want to use St. John's harbour at one time. Mr. McGra±h: Would the lion. member permit a question? Mr. Pickersgill: Certainly. [Mr. Pickersgill.] Mr. McGrath: The bon. member has just finished lauding the previous administration, of which hie was an active member, on the Foundation Company plans for the develop- ment of St. John's harbour. Subsequently hie told the house something of the controversy which bas been going on- Some hon. Members: Question. Mr. McGraih: Perhaps the hion. member would care to inform the house what stand be takes in this controversy? Mr. Pickersgill: I tbank the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing me to the point to which I was coming anyway, and I amn very happy to answer bim. As I was about to say when the bon. member rose, I have no personal opinion as to whether the Foundation Company's plan is a good one or whetber the alternative suggested by various distinguîshed citizens of St. John's is a better one. The only tbing I wouid like to see, and 1 arn sure the minister and the bion. member for St. Jobn's East and the bion. member for St. John's West would agree with me in tbis, is that this matter sbould be resoived in a manner which wiil be of tbe maximum permanent benefit as well as the maximum immediate benefit to the people of St. John's, the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada. Witb respect to nine-tentbs of the plan there is no controversy wbatsoever. With respect to the development of the south side of the harbour, in so far as I have been able to read the documents-and I do not know whether I have read them ail, because the minister bas not yet been able to table them, but I have conscientiously tried to read such as have come into my possession-there is no controversy wbatsoever, and there is no reason for any delay there at ail. The only controversy is with respect to the waterfront between Water street and the harbour on the north side, and that is as to whether there should be a breastwork for the wbole length or, I believe the figure is, only for 650 feet. On that point I must say my feeling is that if it can be done it should be done for the whole length, and I think almost anyone who bas ever had anything to do with the berth- ing of vessels would feel the same way. It is bard flot to believe it would be a great deal better to bave the wbole length of the barbour along Water street developed for berthing instead of baving a 2-3 grade, which would make it impossible to bring vessels alongside a good deal of the waterfront. The main co'itroversy, as the minister knows, and as ail bon. members from New- foundland know very well, is about the 1114 proposed pier for the west end of the harbour ,as compared with the alternative suggestion that the government should acquire certain piers which now exist at the east end of the harbour, bring thern up to date-and use them there. As I say, I do not propose to spend any time expressing my opinion on that question because I do not think my opinion would im- press anyone. I do not think it would be of any value. I am not an expert, and I do not pretend to be an expert. But because I think the matter is extremely important to the future of Newfoundland, in fact to the whole of Canada, what I do say to the minister most earnestly is this. Surely the ninister could go ahead with the parts of the plan about which there is no controversy and have, as quickly as possible, a really expert investigation in which the proper people from the government would be called; in which Mr. Eric Bowring, who I understand acted as agent for the minister of war transport of the United Kingdom during the war and who had the responsibility of operating the har- bour, would be called; in which any other person having any pretentions to real knowledge would be called; in which any citizen who wished to make representations rould be called. It does seem to me, sir, that there are a lot of people in St. John's who are worried about this question. They are afraid that if the governiment do not proceed with the Foundation Company plan they will not do anything. I do not think so ill of the minis- ter. I think much better of him than that. What I am trying to suggest, sir, is that there is no need to delay going ahead with some parts of tlhe plan while carrying on at the same time a careful investigation into these two controversial points. It does seem to me that all of us, on both sides of the house, would feel better satisfied if that could be done. I do not think there is anything more I can usefully say. I have attempted in what I have said to be entirely non-partisan be- cause, as the hon. member for St. John's East righltly pointed out, it was the previous gov- ernment that engaged the Foundation Com- pany to make this plan. I am not competent to criticize, and I am sure the hon. gentleman loes not think he is competent to criticize, either. However, some people with reputa- tions, who feel they are competent to criticize, have criticized the plan. It does seerm to me that it would be better for all concerned to clear this up. If I may say something that perhaps reflects a little bit on the previous government, we have a situation in Port aux Basques that all of us on this side of the house rather deplore. I do not think those things that have been done at Port aux Basques would have been Supply-Pub1c Works done. by even the present Minis.ter of Trans- port if he had occupied that position then. What I am appealing to the Minister of Public Works to do is to make sure he does riot do some things which will turn out to be as regrettable as some things done at Port aux Basques. Again, I am not trying to cast reflections on anyone. I arn trying to indicate what I think should be done about this prob- lem that is of grave concern to people of substance, people of responsibility, in St. John's I must say, sir, that I was pleased to hear that the rninister is going to have what he called a proper shelf. He said something about that at page 907 of Hansard. Later on in the consideration of his estimates, when he begins dealing with the province of Newfoundland, I shall have a lot of suggestions to make to him as to some things that could be put on that shelf. I hope they will be kept right at the front of the shelf, and not pushed to the back. The Chairman: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Mr. Green: During the discussion a week ago there were several very interesting and important questions raised by different mem- bers who participated in the debate. I have been going over thern carefully in the inter- vening period, and I think they can best be dealt with as we come to the individual items. In so far as the rernarks just made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are concerned, some of these also come in this category. They could only be properly dealt with on the particular items. But he did make one statement which I should like to correct at once. He intimated that last sum- mer the new government, on taking office, had stopped public works as a deliberate policy. I can assure him and other members of the committee that is not the case at all. He is completely wrong in these suspicions. Our attempt to provide employment is genuine. We have not only accelerated work projects but brought in new projects. The Wesleyville post office is a very important example. There may have been plans in the depart- ment under the former government, but I assure the hon. member that there was not the slightest intention of undertaking that construction. No funds had been provided for it in the fiscal year 1957-58. Mr. Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister will permit me, since he has called my veracity into question, to state that I happen to know there were such plans. I say, on my respon- sibility as a member of the former adminis- tration, that I was assured by the previous JUNE 13, 1958 1115 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works minister that it was proposed to go ahead last summer with this building. Mr. Green: I have great respect for the former minister. Hon. Mr. Winters was one of my best friends in the house for many years, and an excellent minister. But I happen to have had the responsibility for the work of the department for nearly a year now, and I say on my responsibility as minister of the department that funds were not provided for this post office in the fiscal year 1957-58. In order to provide work I put it ahead, just as I did with other projects that could be put ahead. As a direct consequence of that action the Wesleyville post office is now being built. The hon. member is also quite wrong in trying to prove that the government has not a works plan by criticizing what the Depart- ment of Public Works is doing. This depart- ment is only one of the departments engaged in providing works projects. Other depart- ments which probably provide more money are transport, defence production and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not come under the Department of Public Works although it re- ports to me as minister, has provided now over $270 million for the construction of homes. The hon. member, if he is going to criticize the work plans of the government, must attack us on a much broader basis, because the public works department only has part of this program. Mr. Pickersgill: On that point, if I may interrupt the minister, I criticized the whole of the works program. I am very familiar with what the minister is saying about more than one department being involved. If one examines the whole works program of the government it becomes apparent there is no substantial change from a year ago. The amount is slightly larger, but considering the magnitude of the unemployment in this country it is totally inadequate. Mr. Green: The hon. member is entitled to that opinion, and it is one which I should have expected him to express; but I think the people of Canada are a little more fair minded than he on this question, and they will agree with me when I say that all the works projects initiated by the government in the last ten months have resulted in a great many Canadians having employment who otherwise would not have had that employment. Mr. Pearson: May I ask a question of the minister arising out of what he has just said, Mr. Chairman. Am I right in concluding that he has stated as a matter of fact that [Mr. Pickersgill.] there were no projects and no proposais for public works that had been agreed to by the previous government and for which appro- priations had been made that were either cancelled or suspended by the present gov- ernment when it came into office? Mr. Green: There may have been some small items having to do with protection works in the St. Lawrence area. This was done in order for us to take a look at this whole policy, because in our opinion at least some of these projects were being constructed on a political and partisan basis; for instance, putting a wall in front of the property of a Liberal farmer and not in front of the prop- erty of any one else. But I know of no other works which were cancelled or suspended. Mr. Pearson: There were a lot. Mr. Pickersgill: What about the post office building here in Ottawa? Mr. Green: There was the question of the building in London of which the Leader of the Opposition is probably well aware. That work has not been proceeded with. Mr. Martin (Essex East): What building is that? Mr. Pickersgill: What about the post office building right here in Ottawa? Mr. Bourget: May I remind the hon. min- ister of the post office building in Ottawa? Mr. Green: Would the hon. gentleman wait until I have completed my remarks? Mr. Pearson: He will tell him about the building later. Mr. Green: Also I think it should be pointed out that the increase in the estimates, in- cluding those of the Department of Public Works and the increased work for other departments, amounts to approximately $47 million which in terms of one-man days is roughly the equivalent of on-site labour of 800,000 and off-site labour of 1,500,000. Mr. Pickersgill: Days? Mr. Green: In other words a total of 2,300,000 man days. With regard to new projects, the hon. member said he could not see any new projects anywhere in New- foundland. I can only conclude that he must have spent ail his time chatting with Premier Smallwood, and did not try very hard to find projects. Mr. Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman should not misrepresent what I said. I said I could not find in the list of new projects he gave any that were not already in the early planning stages wben we were in office; and I would be extremely interested ta bear of any project wbicb tbis government ini- tiated frorn tbe very start. Mr. Green: You migbt have had scbemes in the early planning stage, but that is a long, long way from baving any men put ta work on tbem. Mr. Pickersgill: Tbat is certainly changing tbe graund. Mr. Green: Tbere bave been 31 new prai- ects in Newfoundland tbis year. Twenty- five bave already started and tbe remaînder will be started very sbortly. Tbe question of St. Jobn's barbour bas given me great concern, because I received representations from Sir Leonard Outer- bridge, the former lieutenant governor of Newfoundland and a man of very bigb reputa- tion, and from Sir Brian Dunfleld. These two prominent New!oundland people bave op- posed this scbeme not only on small grounds- the new pier may bave been one feature ta which tbey objected-but tbey took very strong exception ta other features of the plan. Sir Leonard at least wanted a compietely new survey and an entirely new plan. Because of my respect for tbis gentleman, and wisbing ta do a tborougb job in connectian witb this famaus harbour, I sent the plan back ta my officiais time after time. We would prabably bave been at work on it now bad that not been done. Not only my own officiais but those of tbe Departrnent a! Transport and th navy and in leed everyone interested in this harbour has supported tbe recommendations made by the engineering firm, tbe Foundation Company of Canada Limited. Like the bon. member for Bonavista-Twil- lingate, 1 arn not an expert on tbis matter. I do flot even own a rawboat, so I arn nat an expert on sbipping. I do not quite understand how this ex-Manitoban from Ottawa suddenly gets ta be a shipping magnate down in New- foundiand. Mr. Pickersgill: I suggest tbat tbe minister came down .tbere sometime and see. Mr. Green: I arn glad be is learning ta like the smell o! sait water, anyway. Faced with that situation and with urgent demands from the mayor of St. John's, tbe board o! trade, the generai public and the newspapers-and certainiy with na obj~ction from the New- foundiand governrnent, wbicb is evidently trying ta be neutral in tbis question- Mr. Pickersgill: Sa arn I. Mr. Green: We finally decided a start bad ta be made. The engineers bave been engaged ta draw up plans, and we are haping tenders Supply-Publie Works will be called later in the 'present year. We will do our very best ta see that this job is weli done. I arn sorry it bas not been pas- sible for the people of St. John's to reach agreement as ta the type of development tbey wish. From my information an overwhelming mai ority of tbem favour the plan wbicb was submitted ta the former government by the Foundation Company of Canada Limited. This is just one of those situations in which we had ta do the best we could. Mr. Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question at this point? I read again only yesterday the correspondence that appeared in the Daily News, of which many hon. mem- bers bave received copies; and as far as I could discern fromn reading it-and I could easily be wrang about this-there were only two points of difference. Nobody questions tbe desirability of the whole development o! the soutb side as proposed in tbe plan. Nobody questions tbe desirability of baving a road- way across tbe nortb side of the barbour to remove the congestion from Water street. The Chairman: Order. I feel I must draw tbe attention o! the committee ta tbe fact that as I understand it tbe purpose o! this debate an tbe first item of tbe departrnent is to discuss tbe activîties of this department in general terms, and tbat tbe debate on par- ticular matters should corne later when indi- vidual items are discussed. For the last bal! blour or so tbis discussion bas been concen- trated mostly on tbe subi ect of tbe St. Jobn's barbour. I consequently belleve tbat tbe debate sbould get back ta more general terrns. Mr. Green: I believe the suggestion made by tbe chairman is a very wise one. There is an item in tbe estimates for this, and wben we reacb it I will be glad ta deal witb the bon. member's questions. Mr. Pickersgill: I amn quite willing to comply witb the minister's suggestion. It would bave taken me less tirne ta make the oniy point I bad ta make, sir, tban it took tbe Chairman. Mr. Fisher: I do flot like ta rise twice in tbe general discussion, but rny inability ta express myseif properly this rnorning led the minister ta misunderstand my question i relation ta Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I was using the word "morato- rium" in tbe general sense tbat it is used in war payments and tbat sort of tbing. In reply he suggested tbat it was impossible for the federal government ta do anything about stopping or postponing fareclosures on mort- gage loans which were beld by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He sug- gested this was a matter for tbe provinces. 1117JUNE 13» 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Pubcli Works I think at this time it might be worth while having a statement of the govern- ment's position in that regard, perhaps it would be possible for the minister to make a more specific statement than the one he so kindly made several months ago, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was not going to push foreclosures in view of the information that was given in the committee of the other place. I shall read his words: The corporation did not hear of all cases where borrowers got into difficulties. If the government, through the minister, came out with a forthright statement in this regard many of those borrowers whom Cen- tral Mortgage and Housing Corporation do not hear of would be aware that some action was being taken, and they would not have to be in the position of being foreclosed. Another point on which I wanted to touch, because it has been brought to my attention, is this. In the interval since these estimates were last before the house several unions have intimated to me that there is no liaison between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Labour with regard to tenders and the operation of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. As I understand it, on any of the projects which are let by tender by this department the contractor must con- form to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. There is a section of the Department of Labour which keeps a record of the going rates of wages of labour in a specific area. One of the problems that come up is that the Department of Public Works does not check closely into those who bid on and may be awarded tenders, as to whether they have contracts with certain unions; and at times there is quite a conflict between the unions and the fair wage section of the Department of Labour as to just what are the prevail- ing rates in certain areas. The fair wage Oct says that prevailing rates must be paid on government contracts. This problem is also evident in Ontario as far as provincial projects are concerned, and officials of two different unions have told me that they find their relationship in the matter usually more satisfactory with the province than with the federal government. It is almost impossible to get the federal government, the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works, to take any action to see that when a contractor, usually a wildcat type, comes in to bid on a job in an area where he has not his base, he puts in a bid at a rate below the actual contract. Quite often he is able to get away with it because the section of the Department of Labour which keeps the record of the wage [Mr. Fisher.] agreements, or the going prevailing rate in those areas, is behind in its work. We had a case not two months ago in our particular area where the prevailing rates, according to the fair wage section, were $1.40 an hour for timbermen and $1.80 for carpenters, whereas the actual rate in the area as far as the unions were concerned with the bona fide contractors who were signed up by them-and I might say the coverage is almost 100 per cent-was from 40 cents to 65 cents above that. To this particular case a contractor from outside came in and put in non-union labour at this lower rate. When the union protested in order to protect this prevailing rate-you cannot blame the union for that-they were able to get no action at all from the Depart- ment of Public Works or the Department of Labour. There was a passing of the buck. The unions are under pressure from the contractors in this regard. If a contractor signs up with a union at a set of rates which are going to prevail in a certain area he knows that when he bids on a contract he has to take those wage rates into considera- tion, and so his tender is submitted on that basis; whereas another contractor, who usually is from outside the district and whe does not have that rate to take care of, can come in and submit his tender on the basis of lower rates and by doing so can undermine the whole structure. In effect a union con- tractor, whom we shall call the good con- tractor, has no sure way of getting some of the public works tenders. The minister and his officials should consider working out a much closer liaison with the Department of Labour, and make it more clearly understood to everyone who gets a contract that if the wages paid are below the prevailing rate instantaneous action must be taken to raise the rates, and that the contract will be adjusted accordingly If that were done we would get away from this difficulty. If the minister would like correspondence in this regard and an explana- tion of why the relationship with the province of Ontario has been much more satisfactory than with the federal government I will be only too pleased to give it to him. The minister has brought up again today the point that I asked him to make a state- ment on, namely the question of patronage. I think before he gets to the specific items of his estimates he should make a statement on patronage. Perhaps his previous explana- tion of his determination to wipe it out did please quite a number and gave a great deal of pleasure to the public. I read this from the Temperance Advocate in relation ta the minister: Our federal Minister of Public Works "cuts no corners on the high principles he established for himnself in early if e". There are no currylngs of favour or salesbaiting offerings permitted in his office. Such gifts, we understand. are ail returned. We commend the mainister for his courage and the definiteness of his witness. The Hon. Howard C. Green is a teetotaler. Let us have a statemnent fromn the minister on this patronage question and what steps he has taken to stamp it out. The other point that I should like to bring to the minister's attention is this, and this may be a question of patronage or of ineffi- ciency. When we get ta the place in his estimates that deals with the centrai heating plant here and the bolers I expect, Mr. Chairman, that we wiii get a very clear explanation as to why the central heating plant is fiooded with boilers at the present time, some of which are not being used, and at the samne time we have some figures in the estimates for more boilers. Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention ta take part in this debate on the first item of the estimates of the Depart- ment of Public.Works. However, after listen- ing ta the long, elaborate and glorified statement made by the minister in introducing the estîmates of his department on Friday last I felt it was -an invitation that could nat be turned down. Before expressing my disagreement with somne of the statements made by the minister I should like to express my appreciation for the co-operation received not; only from the Minister of Public Works but fromn the officers of hils departmnent, and this appiies to. the deputy minister, ta the officers and engineers in the field. On different occasions I have had the opportunity to follow the work o! some of these engineers, and I can assure the committee that they spare no time and effort ta solve the difficult problemns placed before them. I regret that I cannot agree with the min- ister's statements and the emphasis piaced an the suppased accelerated pragram of con- struction by his departmnent. In iistening ta the minister an Friday last one might have been inciined ta believe that this was the first year that new prajects were initiated by the federal Department o! Public Works. The Canadian people stili recaîl the Prime Minister's description of those prospective pu .blic warks prajects as a great national de- velopment which, ta use his own words, "would. swing into action immediately and Supply-Public Works would be part of his party's national develop- ment poiicy." In fact, he called it a very extensive and challenging programn. It was ta be a pragram which, in the Prime Minister's awn words, "was to ensure the development of aur country and to provide as well help ta Canadians, work ta Canadians and an opportunity for the better things of life." These projects were ta total $280 million, during the first quarter of 1958 and $1,185 million for the full calendar year. When we listened the day before yesterday ta the report on unemployment given the house by the Acting Minister of Labour, and learned that as of May 31 there were aver 500,000 Canadians seeking unemployment in- surance benefits, we on this side of the house feit that the public works program was not too effective. At this point I want ta mention that we af the officiai opposition are flot re- joicing about the large number of unemployed we have in the country today, because after ail if there are 500,000 Canadians applying for unemployment insurance benefits there must be another quarter of a million who are out of work and whose benefits have expired. When one listened ta the minister's rail cal of public warks prajects, followed by the diversified version supplied by the hon. mem- ber for Halifax, one might have been led ta believe that neyer before in the history of thig parliament had a series of new public works prajects been undertaken by the government department responsible for such works., It has been made clear by the hon. member for Levis that the Prime Minister's great vision of a public works program offers very little iii new projects of major importance, and it can be termed as nothing but the continuation of a routine departmental construction programi includirig many Liberai projects already under way such as the St. Lawrence seaway, the northern Ontario pipe line and ýothers., At this point I should like ta place on record the total public works expenditures for the fiscal years 1953-54 ta date. In 1953-54 the federal Department of Public Works spent $144,581,000. In 1954-55 the samne department spent .$157,287,000, an increase of $13 million aver the previous year. In 1955-56 the amount spent was $167,865,000, an increase of $10 mil- lion over the previous year. In 1956-57 the amount spent was $173,592,000, an increase of $6 million over the previous year, and in 1957-58 the amount spent was $191,426,000, an increase of $18 million over the year before. The estimates for the present fiscal year, including the supplementary estimates tabled in the bouse, amount ta $233 million. These figures, with the exception of the last one, have been taken from the summary of standard expenditures attached to the main estimates for each fiscal year. The last JUNE 13, 1958 ilis HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works amount, as stated by the minister on Friday last, shows an increase of $41.6 million over the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958. The increase, however, is only $23 million greater than the increase for the previous year, and we are asking ourselves if this is really the very extensive and challenging program out- lined by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. The minister has mentioned 236 projects controlled by public works for other depart- ments of the government, of which 168 are new items. This is certainly not the first year that the Department of Public Works has been asked to undertake construction proj- ects not shown in his regular estimates but included in the estimates for other depart- ments. The minister and members of the bouse know that this practice has been going on for years and years. I have here the report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957. At one o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Robichaud: Before the committee took recess at one o'clock I was referring to the 236 projects mentioned by the minister which were controlled by the Department of Public Works for other departments of the govern- ment. As I have stated, the minister knows, as do the other members of this house, that this practice has been going on for years. I have here the annual report of the Depart- ment of Public Works for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957. I think that it would be a good thing to have a few paragraphs of this report on the record. This report starts as follows: A considerable increase in activity for the Department of Public Works was seen in the fiscal year 1957. I may add that during that fiscal year the Liberal government was in power. Construction and maintenance work was con- tinued on harbour facilities and protection works, dredging of navigable channels was carried out in harbours and rivers where required and testing laboratories were operated. Further on it refers to the harbours and rivers engineering branch and states as follows: Construction and repairs were made to 302 wharves, breakwaters, other harbour facilities and protection works, of which 232 were completed during the year and 70 still in progress as of March 31, 1957. In addition to this, 1,339 smaller projects were undertaken. This last quotation might be of interest to the bon. member for Halifax. All of this [Mr. Robichaud.] was done in a period of inflation when mate- rial was in short supply and when in many cases labour was not always readily available. I should like now to speak more specifically of public works projects for the province of New Brunswick. We are aware that in New Brunswick there is today a great deal of unemployment. What major projects have been initiated within the last few months for New Brunswick? In 1954-55 over $1,350,000 was spent in New Brunswick for public buildings and over $1 million was spent in 1955-56. What has been done this year by the government to relieve this serious unemployment situation by public works proj- ects? We see in the main estimates $1,625,- 000 plus $380,000 in the supplementary estimates tabled a week or so ago. It is true this makes a total of $2 million. How- ever $1 million is for the customs building in Saint John, New Brunswick for which tenders were called before the June 10, 1957 election; $150,000 is to complete the Bathurst building and $100,000 is for the Newcastle building, both projects for which tenders were called before the June 10 election. In fact, they are all projects for which tenders were called by the previous administration, with the exception of $275,000 for Campbell- ton and Grand Falls buildings. The only items for New Brunswick in the supplementary estimates are $380,000 for Newcastle and Saint John, two projects which were started by the previous Liberal administration. Mr. Chairman, that is certainly not an accelerated program of public works for New Brunswick. In other words, if these projects had not been initiated by the Liberal government there would have been no items for New Brunswick in the supplementary estimates just mentioned. How does the Minister of Public Works expect to relieve unemployment in New Brunswick by this piecemeal program where the people of my province are getting less than their share of public works? The minis- ter may bring to the attention of the com- mittee the sum of $4 million which is provided for in the harbours and rivers en- gineering services. Here again we see nothing but a continuation of projects initiated by the previous administration, with the exception of a few minor ones. The two main items such as $900,000 for dredging in Courtenay bay and $600,000 for breakwater replacements at North Head are all projects initiated last year by the previous administration and would have been completed this year irre- spective of what party was in power. The minister in his remarks mentioned the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. Here I want to give the government credit for having suc- ceeded in convincing the government of the 1120 JUNE 13, 1958 province of New Brunswick and the govern- ment of the province of Quebec to accept the responsibility of sharing in this new venture. Also in the course of his remarks the minister asked me whether I was against the bridge. I want to make it clear that I am not against the construction of this bridge; I am greatly in favour of the bridge. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not in his seat at the moment. I have here in my hand the Telegraph-Journal for Monday, May 26, which under the heading "Hon. George Hees offi- ciates for Day's Ceremony" contains an article which reads in part as follows: Campbellton-A start was made on the Camp- bellton-Cross Point bridge here Saturday when the Hon. George Hees, Minister of Transport, officiated over the dumping of the first load of stone on the causeway. I wish the minister were here because I am informed-and I should like to check on this information-that the minister was about 1,000 miles away from Campbellton when this project was started and this ceremony took place. Speaking about bridges, may I say that there is now under construction in Gloucester county a bridge to link Shippigan island to the mainland. This bridge is being built by a private company and when it is completed it will be a toll bridge. It is most unfortunate that the government of the province of New Brunswick has not consulted with the federal government with a view to making this bridge a joint federal-provincial project. After all, this bridge crosses navigable waters in an extremely busy channel which is being used at least two to four times a week by 60 to 70 draggers and a fleet of smaller fishing boats. This is a project which should have been undertaken with the joint co-operation of the federal and provincial governments because it is not right to ask the 5,000 or 6,000 people of Shippigan island to have to pay a fare every time they wish to cross to the mainland. I would like to refer to projects which are of special interest to my constituency of Gloucester. I realize the Minister of Public Works bas stated on many occasions that his government is determined, by means of this so-called accelerated program to help solve the unemployment situation. In my constituency the minister bas a golden oppor- tunity to put this policy into practice. We have for example, at Maisonnette, a small village of about 150 families, 35 fishing boats employing about 70 fishermen, but owing to lack of wharfage facilities and shelter these fishermen are limited to about two months of fishing operations per year. This is an oppor- tunity where not only could employment be provided by the construction of additional Supply-Public Works wharfage facilities but employment could also be provided for these 70 fishermen if a fish plant could be erected there. With proper wharfage facilities there would be no unem- ployment problem at Maisonnette. The same problem exists at Lower Caraquet where the old wharf was built 30 or 40 years ago and is now outmoded and practically useless. I would ask the minister to have a complete survey made at Lower Caraquet with respect to the possibility of a new loca- tion for a new wharf which could be used to advantage by the fishermen. We also have at Tracadie a situation which should be corrected without delay. The breakwater there also was constructed, at least 25 to 30 years ago and is now practically in ruins. The northern section of it is blocking the channel and this is a danger to navigation. I would urge the minister to give immediate attention to the removal of this breakwater which, as I have said, is interfering with navigation. In conclusion, I would like the minister to state the position of his department with regard to the improvement of Bathurst harbour. During the last campaign my oppo- nent had prominent advertisements in local newspapers to the effect that he had succeeded in obtaining $3z million for harbour improve- ments at Bathurst, but there is nothing about this in the estimates and I would like the minister to clarify the situation. The port of Bathurst is in great need of wharfage facil- ities. In fact there is no public wharf at Bathurst which can be used to advantage and in this period when we still have, at this late date in the middle of June, about 3,500 to 4,000 unemployed in Gloucester county it would be a good time to negotiate with respect to projects of this kind. (Translation): Mr. Gour: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). I think the hon. minister is a first rate politician for, when he introduced his esti- mates, his speech was more a political one than anything else. After the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of all Conservative candidates in the June 1957 campaign, repeated with even, greater emphasis in the 1958 campaign, and considering that there were more unemployed in Canada than at any time, except under the Conservative administration of 1930-35, I thought and hoped that the Conservatives would fulfil at least one of their election promises. Unfor- tunately, such bas not been the case. I have taken a fairly close look at the expenses incurred during the Liberal admin- HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works istration, and find that this department's estimates are only 30 million dollars higher than in the preceding year, and also that most of the projects involved had been pre- pared by the Liberal government. However I congratulate the Ministors of Public Works, of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Brooks) for awarding a contract for the con- struction of a hospital on the Smyth road and for actually starting the work on this site. It had been planned by the Liberal government. This hospital is necessary for the proper care of veterans, military per- sonnel and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Hon. members and all Canadians will admit, I am sure, that we are proud of the fact that no other country has a better organ- ized and more respected police force than the R.C.M.P. In fact, during a trip I had the pleasure of making six years ago through fourteen European and Asiatic countries, I heard nothing but praise for our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I am happy to feel that no other country takes better care than we do of our veterans, men who devoted them- selves selflessly to the defence of Canada and of all people who wish to remain free. In my opinion, public works expenditures will have to be increased every year. Because of the increased population and growing pros- perity up to June, 1957, new buildings of all kinds will be needed to keep pace with the expansion of our country. The only time when it is proper to reduce the expenditures of the Department of Public Works is in times of prosperity when labour and mate- rials are so scarce that they are better left to private enterprise. However, now that more than 10 per cent of the labour force is unem- ployed, and that there is a better supply of materials, we had better double the estimates of that department, and provide jobs paying from $50 to $80 a week so that jobless people may enjoy a decent living with their family, rather than pay unemployment insurance benefits amounting to $20 or $25 a week to some of them for doing nothing while thousands of others have exhausted their benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Act, as it is, was passed and put in force under the Liberal administration to assist unemployed people in the winter months. Unfortunately, in Canada there will always be a few thou- sand unemployed workers during the cold season. I appreciate that but it is ridiculous to find about 400,000 of them in June. [Mr. Gour.] One project which in my opinion would provide work for the unemployed of the Ottawa area, which includes the constituen- cies of Russell, Ottawa East, Ottawa West, Carleton, Hull, Gatineau and Labelle, would be to build headquarters for the armed serv- ices in the area of the Rockcliffe airport. I am sorry that the Minister of National De- fence is not in his seat because I meant to ask him to try to prevail upon his personnel, as well as upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet, to have this project undertaken at Rockcliffe, where everything is ready, rather than in the vicinity of the Pine- crest cemetery, on the Base Line road, or else at Bell's Corners, as was suggested by some interested people,-which is too far away for water and electric services and where, more- over, no site is owned by the government. This latter site would cost much more and would be very inconvenient for employees. Mr. Chairman, I regret that such works were not started last year. If the Liberal government had been reelected on June 10, 1957, the projects I have mentioned, as well as the building for the general staff of our armed forces, the construction of a post office and many other public works on River- side drive would have started last summer. It would have provided jobs for thousands of unemployed of the Ottawa area who are now receiving unemployment insurance benefits. As I have just said, Mr. Chairman, if the Liberal government had been reelected, all these projects would have been carried out, including the construction of a post office at Eastview which is essential and had, more- over, been decided by the Liberal govern- ment. The pentagon would have been built on a lot located partly in the town of Eastview and partly in the city of Ottawa and owned by the Department of National Defence. If this government does not decide to build immediately on its own site, this land, in my opinion, should be subdivided and each lot sold for about $500 preferably to our veterans, to members of our armed forces and then to civilians. Not more than one lot should be sold to any buyer. The buyer should also be required to complete his con- struction work within six months. Moreover, I think that all necessary building materials I just mentioned should be manufactured in Canada on a 100 per cent basis. This would give work not only to construction workers, but also to those who manufacture the re- quired material. 1122 As I say, I am in favour of the Department of Public Works doubling its budget, so as to have all essential and useful projects built. The government should launch this program at once instead of indulging in political speeches on the radio or television networks, or here in this house. The construction of these buildings would certainly be a fillip to business in this country, and would give jobs to thousands of unemployed in the building industry as in the plants manufacturing the needed material. It would also help alleviate the plight of the poor unemployed, for at least fifty of them come to me each week to tell me about their difficulties and ask for my help. Many people have told me they are sorry they voted Conservative. It is therefore in the best interest of those poor people that I am speaking, and even in the best interest of the Conservative party, for, if things thus go on from bad to worse, the people will ask you to resign before your term has expired. Therefore, I call upon the Minister of Public Works to press other members of the cabinet to get permission to make such expenditures and, at the same time, to ask them to delegate groups of individuals and government representatives who would be entrusted with the mission of encouraging industrialists, both from the commonwealth and from elsewhere, to come and establish themselves in Canada, while urging our own Canadian industrialists to enlarge their plants and open others in order to manufacture those articles which we have to import from abroad. That would be much more advan- tageous to our Canadians than sending dele- gations to press foreign manufacturers to come here and sell us their goods, thus in- creasing by the thousands the number of unemployed. (Text): Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, in entering this debate for the first time on the estimates of the first time on the estimates of public works, I should like to join with the hon. member for Levis in the felicita- tions extended to the minister on being se- lected to assume this portfolio. Speaking personally, I hope that the rumours to which the hon. member for Levis referred are not founded on fact, because I am sure everyone on this side of the house would be quite happy to have the minister continue in his portfolio, at least for the life of this parliament. Supply-Pubcli Works On looking over the estimates, and partic- ularly the supplementary estimates, I find that the riding which I have the honour to represent has not fared too badly at the hands of the minister. I want to thank him for the consideration which he has given to the requests I have made of his depart- ment. On page 901 of Hansard, the minister mentioned the public buildings of Burin and Harbour Buffet as examples of the projects which had been advanced in order to help out the unemployment situation. If the min- ister will refer to his records, I am sure he will see that these two projects were provided for in the estimates for the year which ended last March and at least one of them, if not both, had already been advertised and tenders called for prior to June 10. On page 907 of Hansard the minister said that his department was in the course of building up a shelf of public works. The min- ister will be happy to note that I am in the course of preparing a long list of items which I am sure will be of great assistance to him when he comes to building up that program. I hope to be able to present that list to him within the next few days. Before the minister goes too far with the shelf of works, it would be wise for him to consider some addition to his staff because, from my personal observations, I believe there are no public servants in any department who are overworked to the extent they are in his department, particularly in the engin- eering and architectural branches. I should like to pay my personal tribute to these of- ficials for the sympathetic consideration and the kind co-operation which they have always given to the problems I have brought before them. If the minister did not find any shelf of works when he assumed his portfolio per- haps one major reason for it is that his servants are already too greatly overworked to be able to do much more than carry out the current projects for every year. We know that if a shelf of works is to be main- tained it requires much paper work and preparation of blue prints. As much as we would like to have a shelf of works I am sure we do not want it at the expense of the lives or at the risk of impairing the health of the servants of the Department of Public Works. I hope the minister will make a careful study of the work loads which some of his senior officials are now carrying. As far as the estimates before us are con- cerned they seem to follow the same pattern as in previous years. The total estimates for this year are only about $42 million more JUNE 13, 1958 1123 Supply-Pubcli Works than those of the previous year. I am sure the people of Canada will be somewhat dis- mayed to find there is not more evidence in these estimates of the great works program to which the Prime Minister referred in his broadcast from Winnipeg on February 12 in which he said that his government had al- ready launched a program which was going to total $11,085 million and that $270 million of that amount would be spent in the first three months of this year. While we admit that this expenditure would be spread over several departments I believe it is reasonable to assume that a great deal more than ap- proximately $40 million of that $11,085 mil- lion should be accounted for in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. But if there is no evidence of this huge public works program at the present time perhaps that is just as well because President Eisenhower in a recent broadcast referred to such pro- grams in terms of their being a solution for the unemployment problem as something which would result in a minimum of jobs and a maximum of budgetary headaches later on. I should like to draw to the minister's attention the special needs we have in New- foundland particularly in small post offices for more space than is normally required in post offices on the mainland. I do not know how this accommodation is allotted but it is reasonable to assume that some comparison is made with the needs of communities of similar size on the mainland. However, the minister must remember that in most instan- ces on the mainland a mail is received every day while in Newfoundland, and particularly in the coastal regions and in the riding which I represent, a mail is not received oftener perhaps than once a week. Frequently in the winter time mail is received only every two or three weeks and in some cases only every month. When the mail does arrive the local post office is required to handle nerhaps ten or 20 times as much mail as would be handled in a post office of similar size on the mainland. I have been in post offices when a mail has landed and know that the postmaster has had no room to turn around and some of the mail has had to be stored in outhouses and in the lobby. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Carter: Not the kind you are thinking of. There is a need for much greater snace in the small post offices in Newfoundland than is required in similar stations on the mainland. I should like to plead with the minist er to reconsider the plans that have already been approved for the public build- ing at Marystown. I know he has had a great deal of correspondence about this [Mr. Carter.] already but I can assure him from my per- sonal knowledge and observations that the space which it is proposed to provide in the new building is totally inadequate. I would also ask him to reconsider the plumbing arrangements for this building which are not at all in keeping with the size and im- portance of the community. The site for the building is a miserably small plot, big enough only to accommodate the building itself. It makes no provision whatever for expansion which will have to be undertaken in the not too distant future. I urge the minister to completely reconsider this build- ing because at the present time it is not a credit to this parliament or to his department. In the matter of the acquisition of sites I would suggest that the present policy of delaying purchase until they are actually needed is a shortsighted one because land values are increasing at a rapid pace. Many of the communities where public buildings will be needed in future are growing fast. I have particularly in mind the community of Channel where a public building is urgently needed. Consideration was given to this matter several years ago but for some reason or other for which I have never been able to find a satisfactory explanation the plans never materialized. It is going to be exceed- ingly difficult to secure an appropriate site for this building at Channel. I would urge the minister to have a survey made imme- diately and acquire whatever land is avail- able because it certainly will not be available much longer. Mr. Green: What was the name of that community? Mr. Carter: Channel-Port aux Basques. It is a twin town but I understand that the latter part of the name is not in best of favour in his department so I left it off. With regard to the specifications for public buildings I should like to call the minister's attention to the fact that here is a wonderful opportunity to assist local industries which is also one of the best ways of solving the unemployment problem. We have in New- foundland a very fine birch veneer plant which produces a quality product that com- pares very favourably with other products of a similar type that are available on the market. This plant does not have an oppor- tunity to tender on public buildings because the specifications actually specify some other product. I understand that the two public buildings under construction in St. John's at the present time, the post office and cus- toms building, are employing British Colum- bia fir and other products that are no better than what we produce ourselves. HOUSE OF COMMONS1124 Mr. Herridge: That is a misunderstanding. Mr. Pickersgill: It is perfectly true. Mr. Carter: It is a misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend because he does not know what superior products we do have down there. Mr. Herridge: I judge by the large exports of fir to Newfoundland that they cannot obtain that quality there. Mr. Carter: Anyway, al we are asking for is an opportunity to tender, but there is no opportunity to tender if the specifica- tions preclude it by specifying other types of materials which are produced in other parts of this country. We want to build up our industry. We have our own unemployment problem and here is one opportunity which the minister can take advantage of in the future. I am sorry he did not take advantage of it as far as the other buildings are concerned, but I do hope that he will give attention to this fact in the future. Another matter in connection with this is the employment of local labour. I am told that at the present time in St. John's a number of riggers are brought in from the mainland and employed on those public build- ings at a time when we have qualified riggers in St. John's who are still out of work and cannot get employment. The department should exercise much greater control over the type of products that go into the building and the employment of labour to give the maximum opportunity to local industries and local labour. I do hope that the minister will give consideration to this suggestion. I thank the minister also for the provision made in the estimates for the matter of Codroy harbour. Although it is not in my own riding it is of great importance to the fishermen of my riding because it provides them with a haven which enables them to prosecute the fishery in the slack season, something which has not been possible for a good many years. I am thankful, too, for the provision of fishermen's wharves at St. Lawrence and at Harbour Breton. These wharves will enable the fishing industry to be prosecuted on a better and a more economic basis than has been done in the past. In Newfoundland we have more need of this type of installation than ever before because of the unemploy- ment situation. Hon. members will understand that when employmnent was plentiful on the mainland many of our fishermen forsook the fisheries and sought employment on construction work and in factories, but that sort of employment has dried up and the fishermen are now forced to return to the fisheries. Therefore, they must have these facilities if they are to Supply-Public Works be able to earn a livelihood from the fishing industry. We have particular needs at Seal Cove in Fortune bay and also at Lamaline and Garnish. In this connection I should like to draw the minister's attention to the need for shallow dredging equipment. The department has been in Newfoundland since 1949 and I understand that they do not yet have any equipment of that type. We need that type of equipment very badly in our province. Perhaps we have greater need for it in Newfoundland than any other province of Canada. I also ask the minister to give consideration to a wharf at Isle aux Morts. This is a large community which has grown to a phenomenal size and at a phenomenal rate in the last few years. There are over a thousand people there now and they have no public wharf whatever. I know several surveys have been made and it was difficult to find a proper site but I believe a suitable site has at last been disçovered. I do hope that every effort will be made to have this project undertaken at the earliest possible date. As far as the harbour of St. John's is concerned, I have a special interest in it, too, because I live in St. John's and I have lived there for a great many years; St. John's is my home. It is one of the most historical cities in the new world and one of the most important harbours. St. John's is particularly important as a haven and I am going to come out flatfooted and say that I am in favour of the plan proposed by Sir Brian Dunfield and the town planning association. I say that this plan is much more com- prehensive than the other one. It will cost more money but I think we should have the best and we should look forward not 10 or 20 years but 100 years in the development of our ports. Any plan that is going to curtail or diminish the water area of our harbour is going to prove to be a very severe handicap in the future. I am not going to say any more on this point now because I hope to deal with it again when the particular item comes up and perhaps speak in more detail at that time. Before I sit down I want to commend the minister for increasing the miscellaneous grant. I see it has been increased by $200,000 to $1 million but I should like to point out to the minister that even this amount is still very small in proportion to the need. When I came up here in 1949 the grant was $500,000 but costs have gone up a great deal since then. Apart from that, in 1953, I believe, we changed the statute so that only items of $15,000 and over would be separately listed in the blue book, and have provision made for them individually. That greatly in- creased the drain on the miscellaneous grant 1125JUNE 13, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works because formerly only projects up to $9,000 were financed out of this grant. Now, projects up to $14,999 are financed out of this grant and since this $1 million is for all Canada, even if the maritime provinces do get per- haps a little more than their share, when it is divided among the separate provinces and is broken down among the different ridings the miscellaneous grant is still inadequate for the demand which is made upon it. I trust the minister will give consideration to these few suggestions I have made. Mr. Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say on this general discussion of public works and perhaps I would not utter them if it had not been for what the min- ister said a week ago in the rather extra- vagant claims he made for the program of public works which had been put forward by his government as a cure for unemploy- ment. We heard a lot about this last February and March and I thought perhaps we would not have those arguments repeated in a dis- cussion of the estimates of this department. No one, of course, on this side deprecates the importance of a program of public works in respect of national development. There can be no argument on that score and the public works which have been initiated and completed by the Liberal government when it was in power is an indication of our attitude toward public works and national development. Nor can one quarrel with the idea that in a time of recession public works can be very useful indeed in creating employment, espe- cially municipal public works, local public works, which can be started quickly, on which men can be put to work quickly and which do not require long planning and a great deal of red tape to be unrolled in federal headquarters before work can actually begin. No doubt economists will argue for a long time about whether public works or tax reductions are most effective in a time of recession. However, that argument is apart from the matter we are considering now because both can make their contribution to what we are seeking, more employment, though perhaps it should be pointed out that one of the difficulties and disadvantages in a great program of public works as a way of curing unemployment is that great ex- penditures on public works do provide a basis for the creation later of inflationary pres- sures. I have no doubt that is in the minds of the government when they consider public works because we still have the problem of inflation with us in the midst of a period of recession. But to put forward as it was put forward, a couple of months ago and indeed was men- tioned a week ago, a program of public [Mr. Carter.] works as a cure for our troubles did not make sense then and it does not make sense now. As has been pointed out in this discus- sion and previously, this great billion dollar program of public works was nothing more or nothing less than a collection of all the public works in the estimates of the previous year, some of which were on the verge of completion, some of which had just begun and some of which were new. To put that forward as something great and new in our public works history was, of course, some- thing which had no basis of reality. We have had an opportunity now to ex- amine that electoral program of public works in the light of the estimates now before us and that examination certainly confirms the feeling we had at that time that the great billion dollar program was really the estimates of the previous year and that there were a great many things included in that program which had and could have no influence whatever on employment at this time. If members of the committee, as I have no doubt a good many of them have done, will examine the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories attached to the estimates they will get con- firmation of the fact that the program of works for 1958-59 is by and large in its amount not greatly in excess of that which covered the year 1957-58. For instance, taking item 13 of the table, the item dealing with construction or acquisi- tion, the amount voted for 1957-58 was $374 million and the amount in the estimates this year is $380 million, not a very great increase. Under the item for repairs and upkeep-and they were included in the electoral program put forward-the amount this year is $50 million and the amount last year was $48 million. Item 16, construction or acquisition, is a very large item indeed and formed a very large proportion of the billion dollar program that was going to do so much. The amount under that item last year was $548 million and this year the amount is $546 million, a decrease of $2 million. By and large the program in its amount is not greatly in excess of last year. This casts a rather lurid light on this great new billion dollar program of public works. Mr. Green: I think the Leader of the Opposition should point out in fairness that the figures he is quoting now do not refer to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Pearson: They include of course, some works under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend's department. Mr. Green: This is a summary of all de- partments. For example, equipment includes 1128 JUNE 13, 1958 all sorts of things. I think' the Leader of the Opposition is not quite fair in trying ta inti- mate that this constitutes the works plan of the governinent. Mr. Pearson: I want ta be fair but I would also point out that when the billion dollar plus prograin was put forward last February it included a great rnany things which were not specifically public works at aIl. I arn making a comparisan between that billion dollar prograi and the prograin we have outlined here. I quite agree that a lot of these things I have rnentioned do not corne under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend. Mr. Green: This does not include, for example, the over a quarter of a billion dollars spent on housing. Mr. Pickersgill: That is nat in the estimates. at all. Mr. Pearson: That is not included in the estimates we are discussing at ail. I arn talking about works, whetber or nat under public works. Surely my hon. friend will agree that when the $ 1,085 million public works prograrn ta cure unemployrnent was put forward a couple of months ago it in- cluded a great many things which did flot have any relationship whatever to a new public works pragrain. That is confirrned by the estirnates of this year. That is the point I arn tryîng ta make. As the last observation I wish ta make until we get ta the details af the rninister's estirnates, may I point out that the minister said this rnorning that no prajects had been delayed or cancelled by the gavernrnent when it came into power last June, although he qualified that statement a little later ini a way which I will indicate. I think it is pretty clear in the minds of rnost of us that when the new governinent toak over last June they were very preoccupied indeed with the desirabîlity of reducing expendi- tures. They said so and they took action towards that end, and at a tUrne when they were more concerned wîth that than with the possibilities of unemplayrnent. In con- nection with the action which they took surely the minister, after reflecting, will now agree that sorne quite important projects were postponed, if not cancelled. He men- tioned this morning that there were only two he could think of and that they were minor anes invalving a breakwater in front af a Liberal farrn instead of a Conservative farin along the St. Lawrence river or sorne- thing of that nature and he also seemed ta recail a post office or federal building I London, Ontario. Mr. Green: No. Supply-Public Works Mr. Pearsan: I mean London, England. That was a Canadian building in London, and I can certainly understand the govern- ment's attitude with regard ta the post- ponement of that building if it were a question of public works for employrnent purpases because flot many Canadians are being ernployed in the construction of that building. I know saine of the difficulties about that building too which prabably warranted some delay. But last autumn the hon. member for Levis asked a question about this matter, being question No. 182 in the following words: 1. Has the government decided flot ta proceed during the present fiscal year with certain of the projects provided for in the main and supplementary estimates of the Departrnent of Public Works? 2. If sa. what projects? The answer to that question is found an page 2640 of Hansard for December 19, 1957. 1 amn going to read the items. There are a good many of them. Here are saine of the projects which were postpaned last year: New Glasgow, federal building; Oro- mocto, federal building; Dorian, federal building; Nicolet, federal building; Quebea, postal terminal; Morrisburg, post office; Emerson, Manitoba, custorns building; Gla- cier national park, federal housing; Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, harbour improvements; Pleasant Harbour, Nova Scotia, breakwater- wharf; Port Hood, Nova Scotia, breakwater; Port Medway, New Brunswick, breakwater reconstruction; Back Bay, New Brunswick, wharf extension; Ste. Agathe des Monts, wharf; Ste. Flavie, dredging; Mutton Bay, Quebec, wharf; Pointe au Pere, wharf improvements; Little Cascapedia river, dredging. Mr. Green: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether that return he has just read does not include an explanation in each case? In fairness, hie should bave read the explanation. For example, we find this: Location Project Reason New Glasgow, N.S.. Federal bldg. Site unsettled. Oromocta. N.B.. Federal bldg. Site unsettled. Darion, P.Q., Federal bldg. Drawings had ta be changed. Nicolet, P.Q. Federal bldg. Site unsettled. This was not a case of the governinent cancelling thern at ahl. It was a case of dif- ficulties which had arisen in the course of the work of the departinent. It is not a case of the departinent postponing thein at ail. The Leader of the Opposition should nat try ta picture theni as deliberate postponernents. Mr. Pearson: It is quite true that reasons are given after each of these projects. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Pubcli Works Mr. Green: The Leader of the Opposition should have read them. Mr. Pearson: But the minister this morning used the argument, as he did last Friday, that in all these cases the government had stepped in to accelerate these projects. There may have been difficulty preventing the accelera- tion- Mr. Green: On a point of order, may I say that these works were not postponed, cer- tainly not in the sense that that question was asked. In every single case there was some difficulty in connection with the site or the plans or something of that type. In no way could it be described as the government deliberately postponing a project. These matters arise every year. There will be cases this year. Mr. Pearson: There are other works, which are not in this list and which perhaps the minister will explain, that have been post- poned including the West Vancouver post office, the new Bronson avenue canal bridge in Ottawa, the Ottawa Post Office Depart- ment building, the national library, and the national memorial shrine. There may have been good reasons why those projects should have been postponed. Mr. Green: Again the Leader of the Opposi- tion is not being fair. These buildings were not postponed at all. I have never said they were postponed. The post office building was not postponed at all. Mr. Pickersgill: It just was not proceeded with. Mr. Pearson: If it is a question of seman- tics, I will change my language. These were projects which had been initiated by the previous government but which, for one reason or another, have not yet been pro- ceeded with. The argument that my hon. friend was making, and he made it vigor- ously and in political terms last Friday- Mr. Payne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the atten- tion of the Leader of the Opposition to this fact. He said that the West Vancouver post office is not being proceeded with. May I say that work has been going forward for the past three months. Mr. Pearson: The hon. member will have a chance to explain his attitude toward these matters. I leave the matter in your hands, Mr. Chairman, but I doubt that it is a point of order. Mr. Fulton: You had better explain your inaccurate statement that you just put on the record. [Mr. Pearson.] Mr. Pearson: Last Friday the minister made a great point of the fact-and as I say again, he made the point in political terms; in fact, he gloated over our discomfiture at the time-that these public works had been accelerated, that we had held things up and that they pushed ahead with them. With regard to the magnitude of the program I am trying to point out that no case can be made for any great increase over the last year and with regard to acceleration, that there were some projects which were on the books, which had been initiated, had been planned and for which appropriations had been made but which were not proceeded with, certainly in an accelerated way. Those are the two points I wish to make. I think they are valid points and I think they have a bearing on this whole question of public works, both as something which is important for unemployment and also in respect of the government's position that they have pushed hard to give employment through public works. Neither of those points seem to have been entirely met by the minister in the discussion we have had on this first item of his estimates. Mr. Green: I wish to say just a word or two. One very good example of a work which was accelerated is the post office in West Vancouver. We got that rushed ahead. The difficulties about the site were settled with the municipality and the work was actually started many months before it would have been started in the normal course. This was done wherever it was possible; it was done in many dozens of cases. I read a list a week ago of works which had been ac- celerated and I stand by that today. Some mention has been made by the Leader of the Opposition of the Post Office Department building. I presume he means the one which is to be built on Riverside drive. Mr. Pearson: Yes. Mr. Green: No provision was made in the 1957-58 estimates. Mr. Chevrier: Yes; there was. Mr. Green: No provision was made at all in those estimates for construction of that building. There was money used for planning but there was no provision at all for actual construction. The vote was for planning of the building. Mr. Pearson: How much was the vote? Mr. Green: $300,000. Mr. Pearson: $300,000 for planning only? Mr. Green: There has been absolutely no delay in that building. If we had been in 1128 JUNE 13, 1958 a position where we did not have the need to create employment, that was one building which would very well have been held off but it is being put ahead for the purpose entirely of providing employment. Mr. Pickersgill: I wonder whether the min- ister would permit one question? This morn- ing I paid him and the department a tribute for spending 97 per cent of the department's allotment. I am coming to think I made a mistake in doing so. With al that long list of works included in the estimates for last year which were not proceeded with-and I use the minister's own term-surely lie does not mean to say that notwithstanding that, 97 per cent of all the estimates for the department were spent. Mr. Green: The figure of 97 per cent is accurate. The department has never before been able to spend anything like that per- centage of the vote in a year. We aim to spend 100 per cent but you cannot always do that. Mr. Pickersgill: That is impossible. Mr. Green: Every day or so there are prob- lems which crop up. For instance, we can go back to the post office in Wesleyville. In some of the centres we find that people want four or five different sites and that there is a rather violent quarrel in the community as to where it is to be. Things of this sort delay the construction. There are other projects where there have been difficulties of one kind or another and which the department no matter how efficient it might be, in my opinion could not avoid. Mr. Pickersgill: The minister is suggesting that these projects which the Leader of the Opposition read out-a quite substantial list of projects, some of which seem to be rather large-constituted substantially less than 3 per cent of his total estimates? Mr. Caron: Mr. Chairman- Mr. Bourget: He is getting an answer. Mr. Caron: I will wait for the answer. Mr. Green: With regard to the question, raised by the hon. member for Bonavista- Twillingate, may I say this. The estimates for 1957-58 had to be reduced by the amount of $2.7 million covering those buildings and other works where there was delay. If that reduction had not been made, we would have spent 95.7 per cent as against the 97 per cent. Mr. Pickersgill: The minister did not do quite as well as he claimed to have done. Mr. Green: I did not do it at all. It was the departmental officials who did it, and I think they have done a grand job. Mr. Pickersgill: So do I. 57071-3-72 Supply-Public Works The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee): Order. May I make a sugestion to the committee con- cerning remarks at this stage of the resolu- tion and I do so without seeking to cast aspersions on any remarks by any hon. mem- ber in any quarter of the house to date. I might suggest that we confine our remarks in such a way that they be pertinent to the department and that we do not attempt to refight the last election. Mr. Pickersgill: Those remarks should be addressed to the minister. Mr. Caron: Mr. Chairman, I will not try to re-fight the last election. The only thing I would like to say about the little discussion a while ago is that when the minister spoke last Friday he was not quite so ticklish as when lie was accusing the previous govern- ment of not doing anything with respect to public works. He has a right to be ticklish once in a while because he seems to have so much fun with others. The last time I spoke my subject was that of protection walls and I hope the minister did take note of the points I raised and that the matter will be referred to the supreme court because, since Quebec says it is the responsibility of the federal government which the federal government denies, we do need some clarification. Today I wish to mention that there was an understanding between the government and the federal district commission some years ago that public buildings should be de- centralized in order to help with the prob- lems of traffic circulation and parking facil- ities in Ottawa and the surrounding districts. However, some of our new public buildings are being built miles and miles away from the centre of the capital, all on the Ontario side, in spite of the fact that a good part of the territory with which the federal dis- trict commission is concerned is on the Quebec side. Up to now we have been treated as poor relations of a big family, and I want to ask that the minister and his department take a look at some of the beautiful spots we have on the Quebec side which would be suitable for public buildings and would be much nearer the centre of the city than some of the new public buildings which are as much as six and seven miles from the main govern- ment buildings. They seem to extend further and further and they will soon stretch far beyond the city limits. Since the public printing bureau was constructed nothing has been built on the Quebec side of the river. I believe we are still part of Canada and our services are good with the exception of the lack of a bridge, but I trust that the Supply-Public Works minister wili see that a good bridge is bult. There are good sites in the city of Hull, bath in South and West Hull antd there are good sites at Gatineau Point, ail of which are near the centre of Ottawa, and ail wauld be suit- able for the purpose of decentralizing and alleviating traffic problems as excellent space is avaîlabie for parking purposes. Such proj- ects wouid be of great benefit to the people in that area. Mr. McWiiiiasn: The minister, in introduc- ing bis department's estimiates, gave a long list of projects which were said to have been accelerated in order ta provide employment. He tried ta leave the impression that hie was doing great things in opening up a new large scale program of public works wbich xvould cure aur unemployment problem. The fact is that in large measure this works program was started by the former govern- ment andI many of the curruint plans were made by that government. An examination of the estimates brings forth a mucb different picture from that painted by the minister on Friday iast. This great works program xviii fali short of reliev- ing unemplayment ta any worth-while ex- tent. The urban centres may benefit somnewhat but the rural centres acrass Canada will find no relief from the works itemized in the estimates. In fact, the cast of surveys, drafting plans and specifications and the purchase of materiais xviii take up a great portion of the funds allotted leaving, in many cases, only a small amount for actual wages. With respect ta the acceleration mentioned by the minister, I wish ta draw the attention of the bouse ta a newspaper article appearing on June 10 last in the Ottawa Journal from which I read in part as follows: Charge Delay in Government Work Complaints were registered by building trade union otffcials in Ottawa today at the deiay in the public works depariment in calling tenders for mnaiy millions of government contracis. The 1958 construction programn for Ottawa is estimnated at more than $100 million. At the moment thcre were 200 carpenters xvaiting for work. The minister has tried ta make quite a play on wbat his department accompiisbcd in having a start matIe on the Campbellton- Cross Point bridge, between the province of New Brunswick and Queber, xvhich cannocts northeastern New Brunswick with Gaspe. The mninister, by perusai of tIepartmental files, couid ascertain that the previaus government some years aga offered ta pay its share of the cast of tbis bridge, but that the provinces of New Brunswick and Queber would not enter into an agreement at that time. The people cf New Brunswick, particuiariy the people of the northeastern part of that prov- ince, are very pleased that the gavernments [Mr. Caron.] of the provinces concernied have finaily en- tered into an agreement so that by means of this tbree-way proposition a start an the construction can be madIe. The mninister's remarks with respect ta acceleratian of public warks do nat appiy ta a faderai public building at Newcastle, New Brunswick. Tenders for this building were called by the former gavernment antI the contract was awarded ta the Kenny Con- struction Company in 1957, over a year ago, but what xve find today is just a haie in the ground. The construction bogged tIown when the aid building was tomn down. This praject would have provided employment during the Iast winter and during the spring months xvhich would have been very beneficiai ta the unemplayed of the area. The minister will say, no doubt, that delays were caused by a request for a change in the plans made by town officiais. In this regard I would like ta, quota from Hansard November 20 1957, at page 1355, as follaws: Question No. 178-Mr. McWilliam 1. Have steps been taken ta begin construction of the federal public building at Newcastle, New Btrunswick? 2. Was a change made in the site of the building? 3. If so, of wbat nature? 4. tlid it entail much change in plans and specifications? The answer fiied by the parliamentary assistant ta the minister was as follows: 1. Yes. 2. ves. 3. The town officiais made available a 10-foot strip of land ta the rear of the crown site and it wos therefore possible ta meet their request that the building be set back 10 feet from uts planned position to belp traffic conditions. 4. No. Question No. 4, which I should like to repeat reads: Dîd it entail much change in plans and speci- fications? The answer was no. On January 22 of this year I asked the minister the foiiawing question which is faund at page 3606 of Hansarrl for that date: MVr. Speaker, I should like ta direct a question bo the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise as ta the cause of the long delay in com- mnencing the erection of the federal public building nt ýNewcastle, N.B.? The answer to order paper question No. 178 an November 20 last led me ta believe that construction wauld start shortly after that date. The minister's answer was: Mr. speaker, I did not receive notice of this question unitil jusi as I was coming into the bouse, and 1 will have ta make inquiries and obtain the answer. Naw, Mr. Chairman, from the facts as recorded in Hansard of last session it is clear that a long and quite unnecessary delay has HOUSE OF COMMONS1130 taken place. In spite of any excuse the min- ister might offer hie cannot lay dlaim to acceleration, unless it is acceleration in reverse. Was the handling of this project in keeping with the governiment statements on their actions to relieve unemployment? The expenditures in public works for this constituency for the fiscal year amount to $21,000 for the Baie Ste. Anne wharf exten- sion and $40,000 for the lower Neguac wharf extension, two projects that were in the district engineer's plans for 1958 during the former goverrnent's terni of office. At this point I should state that North- umberland-Miramichi received several public buildings, many new wharves and wharf extensions under the Liberal government since I have been a member, ail of which were desîgned to, assist the fishing industry, shipping facilities and provide buildings for public services. Last year when I raised the question of financial. assistance by the fed- eral governiment towards the erection of a proposed highway bridge at Chatham, N.B., I was advised that the federal government did not assume any responsibility for the construction of highway bridges within pro- vincial boundaries. On December 20 of last year, on pages 2711 and 2712 of Hansard, the following questions and answers are recorded: Question No. 286--Mr. McWilllamn: 1. During the past two months did the Minister of Transport receive representstions from the Chatham, N.B. board of trade, in connection with the highway traffle problemn and proposed con- struction of a highway bridge across the Mira- inichi river at Chatham? 2. If so. did the minister reply to such repre- sentations. and what was the nature of the reply? The reply was tabled by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport and reads as follows: 1. Yes, a telegrarn was received £rom the board of trade. 2. The following reply was sent: "Your telegram November 29 requestlng survey traio conditions relative to need for a bridge at Chatham have spoken ta several of rny officials and must advise cannot find any indicstion the proposed bridge would be a federal government responsibility. The bridge would be within province of New Brunswickc and conscquently 1 would sug- gest your representations be addressed to the province." These answers further confirmed, at least in my opinion, the department's policy con- cerning responsibility for erection of high- way bridges within a province. I ask now, does this policy stili exist? Has there been any change whatever from the former policy? I should like also to ask the minister if his department ever received a request from the government of New Brunswick for financial 57071-3-721 Supplyi-Public Works assistance towards the construction of a proposed highway bridge at Chatham across the Miramichi river. This matter has been a political football for the past few years. The provincial gov- ernment has failed to take any action. News- papers and political aspirants have promoted the view that it is a federal responsibility, in. part as a resuit of the location of the Chatham R.C.A.F. station. The federal Conservative candidates in the 1957 and 1958 election cam- paigns promised the construction of this bridge. They failed to gîve any consideration whatever as to where the responsibility lies. These statements misled the voters of the area, many of whom neyer gave any thought as to which governrnent was responsible for construction or whether it might be a joint responsibility. A decision on this aspect of the problem is necessary so that the parties concerned can direct their efforts along the proper channels. The minister is familiar with this situation. When hie was campaigning last spring the bridge committee of the Chatham board of trade interviewed hlm. A report in the Chatham, New Brunswick Gazette of May 6 stated in part, and I quote: At the conference held with Hon. Mr. Green, every assurance was given the committee by Mr. Green that lie would co-operate in every possible way and explore every available channel to enhance the erection of this bridge. It is therefore planned that the committee will, if necessary, Journey ta Ottawa and discuss the matter furtrier with the hon. Minister of Publie Works. At this conference did the minister advise the committee on the government's policy of erecting or giving financial assistance toward the erection of highway bridges, exclusive of the trans-Canada highway bridges, solely within provincial boundaries? If he did state a policy, and I think he should have in order to keep the discussions within the proper channels, what policy did he state? Has the policy changed from last year? Has the bridge comrnittee asked for an interview with the minister? Has the minister invited this committee to corne to Ottawa and discuss the matter? The responsibility, in whole or in part, for the construction of this proposed bridge should be cleared up now. The provincial government continues to draw red herrings across negotiations. They promised a survey five years ago, but no action was taken. Perhaps an indefinite start will be made on the survey on the eve of the next provincial election. In the light of the press report in the Chatham Gazette which I just quoted, the minister gave the bridge committee some very nice sounding words. However, I wonder what they contain? Those words only added to the confusion amongst JUNE 13, 1958 1131 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works the people of that area as to where the responsibility lies. If there is a federal re- sponsibility, in whole or in part, then the minister should say so when he answers the remarks made by members on this item and clear up the confusion. I sincerely trust that the minister will state his department's policy in this regard. As I said before, there is no sign of ac- celeration of public works projects in North- umberland-Miramichi. There is little hope held out that the promised relief from unem- ployment through public works will lessen the number of unemployed this year, when it is at an all-time high for this season of the year. Perhaps in the future, next year or the year after, something of a more concrete nature will be provided. In the meantime, I must say there has been no acceleration whatever in this respect in the constituency which I represent. Mr. Hardie: I do not intend to follow the minister's example of turning this committee into another election campaign. I should like to deal with some of the matters the minister mentioned in his statement. I have some questions to ask and possibly he can answer them now or have answers prepared for the time when the related items come before the committee. The minister spent a great deal of time listing the 168 new projects that were sup- posed to have been started by his govern- ment this year. I wonder if be would give us a list of the projects included in that total of 168 where the preliminary work and planning was initiated since his government took office on June 10 last. I do not think it would take nearly as long to list those projects as it did to list those be cited the other day. We have heard a great deal about ac- celeration on the part of the government in public works projects and about the steps it has taken to relieve unemployment. I wish to place on the record a part of the state- ment made by the minister on June 6 as recorded at page 901 of Hansard: We have accelerated construction. This is a factor which has been almost entirely overlooked in the criticisms made from the other side of the house. For example, we have gone out of our way to promote work during the winter months. Why should the government not go out of its way? It is its responsibility. You would think it was doing the unemployed people of this country a favour by promoting public works projects during the winter months. In his statement the minister said that part of the public works program initiated by this government to look after winter employment was the brushing of 150 miles of road from Fort Providence to Fort Rae during the past winter. This project did [Mr. McWilliam.] relieve some unemployment in the city of Edmonton. It did bring a little relief to some of the unemployed in the Northwest Ter- ritories, too, but we had many people in the Northwest Territories who were unemployed last winter. Fifty per cent of the labour brought in on that job had to be hired through the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton; those were the instructions the contractor received from the minister. He had to obtain half of his labour from Edmonton while people all over the North- west Territories were unemployed. Bringing them in from Edmonton meant paying their fare from Edmonton to Fort Providence and return and at the same time people living in the immediate vicinity of the project were unable to obtain employment. I want to ask the minister a few questions and if he cannot answer them immediately be will have an opportunity to prepare answers before the items are dealt with in the com- mittee. My questions relate in particular to the job between Fort Providence and Fort Rae and are as follows: How many men were hired through the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton for this job? What was the average period of employment of these men? What was the cost of transportation for these men going to and from Edmonton? How many men were hired from the North- west Territories? What was their average period of unemployment? What was the cost of transportation for men hired in the North- west Territories? What was the total amount paid to the contractor for this job? What was the total acreage cleared on this project? This may seem to be asking for more than one should expect but I do not believe it is. The contractor obtained that job on a cost plus fixed fee basis and his costs should have been turned over to the department in detail. There should be no difficulty in supplying me the information I have requested. In addition to that I would like the minister to tell us what was the amount paid the Indian affairs branch for the clearing of the same road west of Fort Rae and how many miles were cleared? The building program for the Department of Fisheries at Hay River is another example I wish to bring to the attention of the min- ister. It was not started until late in the year, I think around November. Not one man in the town of Hay River could obtain work on that project but men were hired from Edmonton whose transportation costs had to be paid. Meanwhile, skilled carpenters in the town of Hay River were without employment. We in the Northwest Territories do not object to helping the people of Canada but it must be JUNE 13, 1958 borne in mind that a serious unemployment problem exists there not only now but every year. In the list of projects referred to by the minister he mentioned a northern affairs school and hostel at Fort Simpson costing $2 million. That is the total amount for the pro- ject. Tenders were called and bidding will close either at the end of June or July. Re- gardless of the closing date, in order for the contractor who is awarded the contract to make a start on that school this year he has to have his material brought in to the end of steel, or to the end of the highway at Hay River, by September 15 at the latest. I doubt whether construction could be got under way this year to the extent of $300,000 of the $2 million. The minister made a strong point the other day of how his department had accelerated its planning to such an extent that this year work had started earlier than in previous years. In the case of the school at Fort Simp- son work has not started earlier but later than most projects commenced in other years. I have another question for the minister. How much earlier or how much later were the contracts awarded for the Mackenzie highway from Fort Providence to Fort Rae and from Yellowknife to Fort Rae this year as com- pared to last year? As far as the increase in expenditures and the $33 million for a road program in the Northwest Territories that the minister men- tioned and all this malarkey we heard during the election campaign in my riding- Mr. Grafftey: Order. Mr. Hardie: I will put you in order in about two minutes. An hon. Member: Invite him to meet you outside the house. Mr. Hardie: If I had to list all the promises made by my opponent in the last election you would find that all the 168 new projects that the government is starting would be located in my riding. I am not going to delay the proceedings of this committee by reading the list of the 168 projects that were promised for my riding. Mr. Carter: Don't restrain yourself. Mr. Hardie: What has happened to this road program? There is less money going to be spent on roads in the Northwest Terri- tories this year than was spent last year. The minister made a big point of mentioning the $12 million Mackenzie highway. This is a job that was started two years ago by the Liberal administration. Up to date possibly 93 miles have been completed and the $12 million was just the remainder of the estimate Supply-Public Works of the Liberal government two years ago when they started the job. There are some other questions I should like answered. For instance, I would like to know the amount of the contract awarded to the contractor on the Yellowknife-Fort Rae section of the road last year. What was the amount of that tender? How much was spent on that portion of the road up to the end of March this year? How many miles of road did the contract call for the completion of; how many miles of road have been com- pleted? I am asking these questions now so that the officials of the department may have the answers when the particular item comes before the committee. The minister said the other day that the new government was going ahead with those projects. I say they are all later this year than they were last year. Less money is being provided this year than last year in my particular riding on this northern development program. He did say that the department has rushed ahead at a rate which would have left the former ad- ministration breathless and lying on the side of the road. I would say that as far as the former administration being breathless is concerned, I think the minister has run out of wind after his statement the other day. He should not run out of wind now; the stretch drive is the thing that counts. I think be will be out of wind by that time. Mr. Garland: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the committee very long. Some of us might perhaps not have taken part in the discussion at this time had it not been for the attitude taken by the minister when he introduced his estimates last week. I know all Canadians were im- pressed when the Prime Minister kicked off his election campaign in Winnipeg with the announcement of $1,185 million of public spending. With the examination of these estimates in this chamber we see that the myth has been exploded. However, it is not with these large figures that I wish to deal today. As I mentioned, I will be brief. I should like to refer specifically to one item and I seek the approval of the committee to cite this one instance. Last Friday the minister created the impression that the public works projects were being proceeded with with breathless dispatch while in fact many of the projects that I know of have been delayed. I have in mind one specific item, namely the dock at Mattawa. Mr. Green: I rise on a point of order. I do suggest that discussion of this kind should take place on the item. If the hon. member is allowed to go into detail of the dock at Mattawa, then every other member can go Supply-Public Works into every other item in his constituency. This morning the hon. member for Bonavista- Twillingate stood over his discussion on the St. John's harbour. It is true it has been the custom to have a general discussion on the first item. This is going beyond that if an bon. member picks out an item and proceeds to talk on it on the general item. Mr. Garland: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is an astute politician-perhaps I should say tactician-in this bouse, but I do say he left himself wide open when be mentioned so many specific items in the in- troduction of his estimates. I prefaced what I had to say by saying that I was going to delay the committee only on one matter. The Chairman: Since we are discussing the general aspects of the department we should limit ourselves to a general discussion and eventually discuss the individual item when we deal with the items. Mr. Garland: Mr. Chairman, I bow to your ruling, of course, but I do say with great respect that we should be permitted to use one instance only to prove a point that has a real bearing on the general discussion. I think the people of the country will find it rather distasteful that promises of public spending are used for political purposes. We have instances of it here, and I shall en- deavour to raise the point again to indicate exactly what I have in mind. I know these are small matters in relation to the billion dollar spending program, or the reported billion dollar program, but they are important in our own area. These small amounts and small docks are very important. The government should take a new look at the importance of the tourist industry in this country. The construction of those docks is tremendously important. I know docks are important in my part of the country and throughout all of Canada. The tourist dollar that is spent in Canada is one of our greatest sources of revenue. Therefore, I urge the government to take a more generous attitude toward those docks. There was a time when it was felt that the tourist industry perhaps was something which should be catered to strictly at the local level. Down through the years we have gotten away from that point of view. In connection with those docks I should like to say just one word. It is a development that has perhaps come along with the times. The department should give consideration to the construction of a launching ramp or apron in connection with the construction of those new docks which are built throughout the country. It is not an expensive item at all. To a $10,000 or $15,000 dock it could be added as an extra feature for perhaps a matter of [Mr. Green.] $200 or $300. It is a great convenience to the people who use such facilities for the launch- ing of craft that may be transported on trailers or otherwise and I should like to make that suggestion. In introducing his estimates the other day the minister brought up the matter of hous- ing. I would remind him that I am still wait- ing for an answer to my question respecting the decision of the government to suspend agency loans. Many people are concerned about this. We perhaps know some of the reasons but I think the house and the country would benefit from a statement in this regard. As I have mentioned before, I know that many of us are concerned about the siphon- ing off of funds from the smaller cities. It would seem that the government is now going in the opposite direction to some extent be- cause they are now going into areas having over 55,000 people with direct loans for the first time. Some of us are concerned as to precisely what the objective is. Is it control of housing or is it control of the economy? I am not going to delay the house by debating the matter now but I think the government should say what the objective is. I believe sincerely that the government's decision to suspend agency loans for the time being will have a detrimental effect on wage earners in the lower income brackets. In my opinion they will be worse off because banks and other institutions engaged in this type of lend- ing will become more selective with their own money. I would appreciate it if the minister would refer to this matter when he replies. Mr. Graffley: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only briefly but I thought I should like to take this opportunity to say to the hon. member for Kootenay West how much I appreciated certain remarks he made with reference to the Minister of Public Works. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West in the congratulations he extended to the minister with regard, for lack of a better word, to patronage and with regard to what he termed the decentralization policy now being carried out by the minister. Before continuing with these few remarks, and they are going to be brief, may I say that I know there will be cynics in the official opposition who will say that my remarks concern patronage but I think those who will scrutinize them carefully will know better. I can only say that I have sat in the bouse during the discussion of these estimates and while the speeches of members of the official opposition may look good back home in their respective ridings I think the Cana- dian people in general are happy that we have a minister who is going to deal with the Department of Public Works in the interests of the Canadian people at large. As I have HOUSE OF COMMONS1134 JUNE 13, 1958 said, I concur heartily in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West concerning the minister. On the question of the decentralization policy in the Department of Public Works I should like to refer briefly to what I had to say in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As found at page 413 of Hansard for May 23, I said: -whenever it is administratively possible and practicable, decentralized buying and contract- letting policies should be carried out. So long as the citizen's tax dollar is being most economically handled, we should stress a program of local work for local people. In other words, fairly justifiable objections are heard when large city firms enter rural ridings to undertake contracts or to carry out works which rural people feel they could do at a cheaper rate themselves. I fully realize, that under modern managerial techniques and having regard to the way business is generally done today it is very often economical to buy centrally and there are also many contracts that only big companies are capable of handling. But I do emphasize that a certain impersonal attitude bas come into what I might call the big business picture. Very often the small man who can carry out works and contracts more cheaply is not invited to tender. Some- times be does not know how to get on lists. I simply want to commend the minister for his intention to pursue a policy of decentra- lization. I know that most rural members, in fact, most members whether they be Liberal, C.C.F. or Conservative, welcome the pursuit of such a policy to a greater degree than bas been the case in the past. I for one feel that such a policy fits in with the announcement in the speech from the throne concerning small businesses. We have all heard in the speech from the throne- Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works is not going to raise a point of order at this time. Mr. Graffiey: We have all heard in the speech from the throne that the new ad- ministration intends to carry out policies that will assist small businesses. I feel this fits in very well with the policy of de- centralization in the Department of Public Works. The Chairman: Order. I regret interrupt- ing the bon. member but at present he is reviving a debate which has already taken place. I would ask him to deal with the subject now being discussed. Mr. Graff±ey: Mr. Chairman, in making these remarks I feel I am expressing an opinion in which members of all parties can concur, I am expressing the opinion that the following of a policy of decentralization to Supply-Public Works a greater degree will result in reasonable sav- ings within the department. I have heard so many criticisms from the opposition about various things that I thought I should stand up and make a few remarks. Mr. Chevrier: You are a nice fellow but you are out of order. Mr. Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the almost embarrassing congratulations of the hon. member who bas just taken his seat make me glow kvith satisfaction and pride and also remove some of the loneliness in my heart indicated by an bon member speaking last night in another debate. In order to quiet the minister's fears, may I say that I am not rising to make another speech. I am simply rising as a pinchhitter for the bon. member for Port Arthur who bas been called away. He has asked me to reiterate two questions be put to the minister both last Friday and today and they are strictly in order because they come within the ambit of policy and administration. He bas asked me to bring to the minister's attention his re- quest for a statement from the minister on his views with respect to patronage, past, present and future. Second, he would like a statement from the minister as to the pos- sibility of a moratorium by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to payments on bouses and house rentals. With these few remarks I have discharged my duty at this time. Mr. Green: I should like to say this with regard to patronage. If I were to speak on patronage it might take a very long time. We attempt to run the Department of Public Works in a proper, businesslike way. With regard to the other question, may I say that I will deal with housing when we get to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora- tion estimates. However, I would point out to my bon. friend that this stressing of a moratorium is not going to help in the pro- vision of money for the building of homes in Canada and it might very well have a serious effect on the construction of homes and thereby on employment in the country and certainly on the procuring of homes by young couples who need them so badly. I suggest that before questions of this kind are stressed in the house it would be wise to give some thought to the results that may follow by the impression being created that there is about to be declared a moratorium on all mortgage payments. I think most hon. members will agree with me that it would not help Canada very much at the present time to have an idea of that type spread across the country. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works Mr. Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister a question based on some remarks he made when he was on this side of the house. In asking this question I do not want to be contentious in the slightest degree be- cause I am sure that when the minister ad- vanced this suggestion he was serious, just as I am at the moment. Mr. Macdonnell: You are never contentious! Mr. Chevrier: Thank you. I am glad to have my hon. friend confirm my statement. When the minister sat on this side of the bouse I think he expressed the opinion from time to time that it might be well if the Department of Public Works were to give consideration to taking over from other de- partments the construction of public works in those various departments. One day when I was passing estimates here having to do with certain construction works in the De- partment of Transport-I have forgotten what the item was but perhaps it had to do with radio or meteorological services or some- thing of that kind-I recall that the minister expressed the feeling that perhaps it was a duplication of services or even a waste of money that there should be so many public works branches in all the departments of government that had any works of a public nature to perform. In the light of the changed circumstances in the bouse and in the light of the consideration which he may have had time to give to the matter since he has been over there on that side of the house, I should like to hear his comments. I am wondering whether or not he has had an opportunity to consider this problem and whether he would care to comment on it at this time? Mr. Green: We do most of the governmental construction work. The main exceptions are the work of the Department of Transport and the work of the Department of National Defence. Occasionally we are doing some work for each of these departments. This seems to have been a practice which has grown up over the years. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend was respon- sible for it when he was minister of trans- port. The Department of Public Works cannot very well raid the Department of Transport. This is a matter which would have to be decided by the government as a whole. As the hon. member will realize, various practices have grown up for one reason or another in the administrative field. Eventually I would hope that they would be remedied. However, there is close co-opera- tion between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. We happen to share the same office building. We have the very best of relationships with that de- partment and we have great admiration for [Mr. Green.] the work they are doing. I hope the hon. member will not press me any further for my views as to what should be done on this point. Mr. Chevrier: I would not think of doing so. I should simply like to say this. I pre- sume there is no intention of changing the policy that has existed in that respect over the years. Mr. Green: We are trying to improve the former government's policies in many re- gards. This may be one of those. Mr. Chevrier: May I proceed to another matter, and again I hope the minister will not think that I am contentious. I want to be constructive in this matter. It has to do with a point that was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with reference to patronage. It is not my intention to open up that question today but I think perhaps briefly the minister could satisfy not only myself but, I am sure, the house in general. Could the minister say what the policy of the Department of Public Works is with reference to that question? Is there going to be an overall change in the present policy? Have any of the employees of the Depart- ment of Works in any category whatever been severed from their employment because of political activities? I think it would be well if the house were to be reassured in that respect. I know that after the election of June 10 the Minister of Public Works made in the house a statement that reassured most hon. members with reference to that matter. I should like to know from him now whether any employees have been severed from their employment since June 10 because of political activity? Mr. Green: There was some discussion on this question during the last parliament, as the hon. member will recall, and references were made to some employees who had been dismissed. I think he will remember that there was one in the Department of Transport who had been extremely active politically. I think all hon. members will agree that civil servants should not take an active part in politics. Frankly I may say that where you have a case in which employees of any de- partment are active organizers politically I do not think they deserve very much con- sideration. However, once again I should like to pay tribute to the work of the civil service. Certainly in my department I have found that they have been excellent. As I told the hon. member for Kootenay West, we are trying to run the department on a businesslike basis. Mr. Chevrier: I was not dealing with the Department of Transport, although I well remember the case the minister had in mind and he had not been extremely active politi- cally: I was dealing with the Department of Public Works. I wonder if he would answer the question by saying whether any employees have been severed from their employment for that reason. My understanding of the case he had in mind is that a member of parliament on his responsibility as a member of parliament and also on his statement that he knows that a person has actively partici- pated in a campaign, may because of that fact require the severing of an employee from his employment. But my understanding of the situation is that that rule does not apply to civil servants as such but applies to the other categories of casuals, supernumeraries or the like and that in so far as civil servants are concerned, the matter is governed by the pertinent sections of the Civil Service Act. However, the question to which I wanted to obtain an answer from the minister if he can give it now-and if he cannot do so, I shall be pleased to wait until a later date-was whether or not in his Department of Public Works, which is a huge department of em- ployment in that respect, there have been any employees who have been severed from their employment because of political activity. Mr. Green: I would inform the bon. mem- ber that one of the employees of the Depart- ment of Public Works had himself appointed a returning officer for the election last year and took a leave of absence to act in that capacity. That employee has since resigned. That sort of thing, in my judgment, is inexcusable. Mr. Pickersgill: Did the minister say "to be a returning officer"? A returning officer is an appointment of the crown. Mr. Chevrier: Does the minister consider that the appointment of a returning officer is an act of partisanship? Mr. Green: It certainly was in this case. I do not believe there has ever been a govern- ment take over in Canada where there bas been so little political partisanship shown towards the civil service. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Green: I would inform the hon. mem- ber that there have been some very provoca- tive actions which in other days would have called for pretty drastic action, but this gov- ernment has leaned over backwards to be non-partisan in its dealings with civil servants, and I am sure the people of Canada as a whole clearly understand that that has been the attitude of the government. Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I was not trying to be provocative at all. On the con- trary, I raised this question in the most casual 57071-3-73 Supply-Public Works manner I could, but I believe the bouse is entitled to know, if the minister can tell us, whether or not any of these men have been severed from their employment for that reason. He did mention the case of the re- turning officer and in order to indicate to him and to the house that I have no intention of being provocative I say to him now that if it is not possible for him to give the in- formation at this moment, I would be quite happy if he gives it to me next week or even afterwards. I am not pressing for an answer immediately but I think not only this house but the public generally will want to know and will want to be reassured of what the minister has just said, that the government is doing a good job with reference to the employees under its jurisdiction. If it is doing that job, fine, and I will be the first to commend the government, but I would like the minister to be a little more specific. He has been very courteous in his reply but has really shelved the issue. I believe we are entitled to a little more than that and if he feels after consideration in the week to come that the reply should be made at a later time I am perfectly happy. However, I feel the house should know what is the position. Mr. Green: I think it would not be in the best interests of the service or of the Com- mons to precipitate a debate on a question of this kind. If it is to be debated then facts will have to be brought out and arguments made as to this man and that man having participated and what he did and so on and so forth. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose whatsoever to get into a wrangle of that kind. The change of govern- ment has been made after a period of 22 years when, as the hon. member himself knows very well, active supporters of his own party were given positions in the civil service. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Green: Twenty-two years with one party in power, and when thousands- Mr. Chevrier: I do not know of any who were discharged. Mr. Green: Thousands of employees were appointed by that government and there were many cases where supporters of opposition parties were unable to get work or were dismissed. Mr. Mcllraith: Oh, oh. Mr. Chairman- Mr. Green: Don't you get started. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the country to open up this subject. We believe in the merit system for the civil service and our actions during the last year have shown that we have faith in that service. We intend JUNE 13, 1958 1137 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works to stand by them and it does not help very much to try to precipitate a debate on a matter of this kind. Mr. Chevrier: I was not trying to precip- itate a debate but apparently the hon. min- ister has been touched by what I have said and has gone, I think, a little further than he should have gone. I have no intention of discussing cases. I was looking for an over-all statement such as the minister made, voluntarily, after the election of June 10 when he assured the Canadian people that there would be no severing of employment because of political activities in so far as the government was concerned. The position which he is now taking is different from that which he took on the first occasion, and he has withdrawn- Mr. Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I made no such statement that there would not be any action taken where there had been political activity. The hon. minister cannot find that I made any such statement. Mr. Chevrier: I must accept the hon. min- ister's statement but he certainly did in this House of Commons assure not only the whole house but the country that this question would be carefully considered by his govern- ment as would the question of change-over and we were assured that- Mr. Green: I made no such statement in the louse of Commons and the hon. minister cannot find that I did. Mr. Chevrier: I am very glad the minister thinks I am still a minister. Mr. Green: There bas never been a govern- ment which has taken over in Canada where there was so little disruption of the civil service. Mr. Chevrier: I would like- The Chairman: Order. I would like to bring to the attention of members that we are at present debating the estinates of the Department of Public Works and I believe we are now getting away from that debate. May I therefore suggest the return to the matter under consideration? Mr. Chevrier: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could help the Chair by bringing the dis- cussion back to the item under consideration and by restating that when I rose, I dis- cussed the question in a general way in the hope that I would get a simple answer. Instead I got a rather acrimonious reply, but notwithstanding what the minister bas said I would like to say that while I was on the other side of the bouse there was no occasion which I can recall when, in my [Mr. Green.] capacity as Minister of Transport I had occasion to recommend that a person be severed from his employment because of political activities and I do hope that will be the case under the present government. Mr. Green: There was a very good reason because they were all on your side, so why should they be severed? Mr. Chevrier: There were five elections. An hon. Member: How would he know? An hon. Member: What about Cornwall? Mr. Chevrier: What was that about Corn- wall? Mr. Robichaud: I would like to ask the minister what is the policy of the department with respect to the appointment of inspectors on construction projects when among the applicants is a man who bas overseas service with the Canadian forces to his credit? Mr. Green: I will deal with that when we come to the particular item. Mr. Pickersgill: I do not think the minister's answer is quite good enough. This question applies to the whole range of activities of the department. We are discussing the adminis- tration of the department and it does seem to me the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester is very relevant. He beat me by a fraction of a second in asking it. There are a great number of appointments-I do not believe any department has more appoint- ments than the minister's department-of a casual and occasional nature. I think we are entitled to know, on item 1, whether or not it is the policy of the department to respect the veterans' preference in connection with these appointments. Mr. Green: The answer to that is yes. Mr. Pickersgille There are two questions that I wanted to put to the minister. I have been looking through the estimates and I cannot find anywhere-that is why I am ask- ing the question on item 1-a vote for the survey of the Chignecto canal which the Prime Minister promised to investigate dur- ing the election campaign. I wonder if the minister could tell me where to find that item in his estimates. The second question is as follows: I have been looking at the amounts appropriated for the minister's department by the governor in council, in the absence of any parliament in this country. I find that the amount ap- propriated was about $3 million less than was in the estimates presented to parliament which were never passed. I was wondering if that $3 million was also taken into account when the minister was making the claim he 1138 did about spending the proportion of the estimates he said had been spent. If by arbitrarily reducing the estimates by $3 mil- lion, then the claim that they had spent 97 per cent of it would give a very different picture from the one the minister tried to give last Friday. Mr. Green: There is no item in the estimates with respect to the Chignecto canal. Mr. Pickersgill: Is the government doing anything about it? Mr. Green: Well, it is under study. With regard to last year's estimates and the balance of which was covered by governor general's warrants, a discussion will come up I presume on the amendment to the Financial Administration Act, or at a later stage. It is not involved in these particular estimates. Mr. Pickersgill: I am quite aware of that. Mr. Green: There were certain amounts voted, certain monthly votes and that sort of business, so I am not in a position to give the exact situation. Mr. Pickersgill: I think perhaps the min- ister would have been quite right if he had not raised the matter himself, but since he made the claim he has spent 97 per cent of last year's estimates I think the committee is entitled, before we pass this item, to be told what estimates he means. Is he talking about the estimates that were presented to parlia- ment or the revised estimates the governor in council passed in secret after the election campaign was under way? It is a very simple question. Mr. Green: The percentages I gave earlier in the afternoon were the correct percentages. Mr. Pickersgill: Yes, but percentages of what? Mr. Green: Percentages of the estimates. Mr. Pickersgill: But of the estimates orig- inally presented to parliament? Mr. Green: It was 95 per cent, approx- imately, of the estimates as printed, and 97 per cent of the revised estimates. Mr. Pickersgill: The minister is unaware of anything being done about the Chignecto canal? Mr. Green: I told the hon. member that this situation was being studied. Mr. Pickersgill: Could the minister indicate whether that is being done by his department or by whom? Mr. Green: By the department. 57071-3-731 Suppl--Public Works Mr. Brooks: The hon. member shows great interest in it now, but he did not show too much a few years ago. Mr. McIlraith: I have two questions to ask the minister. Before doing so, I hope I will not attract acrimonious comment from him when I tell him that I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge, in a wholehearted way, the merit of the civil service. I hope he will not deny me the pleasure of feeling that it is, to some extent at least, to the credit of the former government that they did leave a civil service of such calibre. I think that is fair comment. The questions I wanted to ask him are these. With regard to the discussion a few moments ago about the public works depart- ment supervising the actual construction of all federal public buildings, could he tell the house as to whether or not any decision has been reached with respect to an administra- tive headquarters, presumably in Ottawa, for the C.B.C.? Could he say whether or not any decision has been reached as to whether such a building, when it is built, will be built under the supervision of the public works de- partment or the C.B.C. Mr. Green: We have nothing to do with that. Mr. McIlraith: My point was as to the actual construction of the building, the super- vision of the work. It was very much a lively topic of discussion in the past. My next question has to do with the policy of the government concerning the placing of public buildings on the central experimental farm. I am one of those who considers it a very happy circumstance that we have, right in the heart of our Canadian capital, the very fine central experimental farm. The minister will recall that within the last few years the previous government announced a policy of putting no further public buildings on the lands of the central experimental farm, save and except such buildings as were di- rectly related to the agricultural work being undertaken there. Could he give the house the policy of the present government in that respect? Mr. Green: This really comes under a par- ticular item of the estimates. Perhaps if we could get the general item through this after- noon, then I would be glad to deal with the question. Mr. McIlraith: The information I wanted was as to the general policy of the govern- ment on that point. It is not on a particular item. I should like an answer. If the minister wants the subject discussed on a particular item, and if he will give an undertaking of JUNE 13, 1958 1139 HOUSE OF COMMONS Private Bills-Divorce the government that it can be discussed on a particular item, I will be happy to abide by that. Mr. Green: That would come under build- ings in Ottawa, and I shall be glad to discuss it then. The Chairman: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit agan. Progress reported. PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS Bill No. SD-15, for the relief of Olive-Jane Frances Piper Sinclair.-Mr. McCleavie. Bill No. SD-16, for the relief of Rhoda Carin Burack.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-17, for the relief of Evelyn Grace Blakely Mullins.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-18, for the relief of Julia Swit- nicki Kobel.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-19, for the relief of Eric Duns- tan Martin.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-20, for the relief of Hazel Margaret White Jackson.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-21, for the relief of Mary Stepko Berryman.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-22, for the relief of Jewel Evelyn Bockus Yeo.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-23, for the relief of Clarence Leonard Sproule.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-24, for the relief of Geraldine Avonne Dixon McNaughton.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-25, for the relief of Jean-Louis Ducharme.-Mr. McCleave. Bill No. SD-26, for the relief of Emery George Nemeth.-Mr. MeCleave. Bill No. SD-27, for the relief of Alfreda Rose Celina Gigot Kyriazis.-Mr. McCleave. Mr. Speaker: The business under private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. SUPPLY The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 328. General administration, $8,536,892. Mr. Robichaud: This item shows an in- crease from 549 to 595 employees. Could the minister explain if this increase of 46 em- ployees is due to the establishment of new branches in the department or if it is just a normal increase in office employees? [Mr. McIlraith.] While the minister is obtaining the infor- mation to my first question he might at the same time prepare himself to explain the increase from 58 to 117 employees in the property and building management branch. Here again is this due to new services, new branches, or is it just a regular increase in employees? Mr. Green: There have been no new branches. There bas been a readjustment which accounts for the difference in the num- bers shown under this vote. Unfortunately I sent my books upstairs. I had the information all marked. A survey of the combined office service units in district offices showed that many of the minimum services have not been pro- vided to the technical and professional staff. This has necessitated additional positions in several districts. The heavy work load re- sulting from highway construction programs and the national parks necessitated six posi- tions to carry out the work now being done by prevailing rates staff. Additional staff is needed at Edmonton to deal with increasing developments in northern construction. Mr. Robichaud: In the details concerning the building construction branch to be found on page 460 of the blue book it is indicated there has been a decrease of 46 employees. Was that due to transfer to other services of the department? How is the decrease ex- plained? Mr. Green: Forty-eight additional positions have been transferred from the building con- struction branch as the duties of the positions relate to buildings and maintenance. It is a transfer within the department. Mr. Robichaud: I see there is quite a differ- ence in the development engineering branch. There is an increase from 167 to 261. Is this difference due to the hiring of new engineers in the field or an increase in the staff here in Ottawa? Mr. Green: Large increases in the funds provided for highway construction by other departments have necessitated an increase of 94 positions in the highways division. Thirty- six of the positions were established under the supplementary estimates in 1957-58 to provide engineers in Newfoundland, the Terra Nova national park, the Northwest Territories and the western national parks. Thirty-one positions were established under the main estimates mostly for the western national parks and the Northwest Territories. These are designated as term positions to be re- viewed in three years in the light of the department's commitments at that time. The additional 27 positions have been established for the Yukon Territory. JUNE 13, 1958 Mr. Robichaud: There is a general increase for that branch in this item 328 of a little over $1 million. There is an increase from $7,402,301 to $8,536,892. Is this increase mainly owing to salaries or to an increase in staff? Mr. Green: Most of the increase is due to salary increases; then, of course, there is some additional staff. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising very briefly to re-echo what was said by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I could not agree more completely with him about the excellence of the staff of the department both here in Ottawa and in the province of New- foundland. I am sure the minister's officials will tell him, if he does not know already, there is only one thing wrong with the staff in Newfoundland and that is there are not enough of them. That was very understand- able in the period when the architects and engineers and other technical personnel were so fully employed in this country that it was just not possible to hire them and probably not desirable to interfere with capital develop- ment throughout the country by going on with any public works that could reasonably be postponed. We have now reached the situa- tion where the minister himself indicated that it was greatly in the public interest to accelerate those works in every way possible. I know from what I have seen, even in the past week, that the addition of some engineers in the province of Newfoundland would en- able the department to get on more rapidly with this work, work which as the minister knows is very badly needed in that province. I have wondered what efforts were being made by the department in that direction because we all know at this time, with the universities closing, it is not hard to get com- petent personnel to carry on this kind of work. Mr. Green: We will be very glad to check into this situation in Newfoundland. The officials of the department have been carrying a tremendous load during the winter months and now with the increased construction during the present season. It is not always easy to convince the treasury officials as to just how much of an increase there should be in staff. The hon. member knows that this was always somewhat of a problem. Mr. Pickersgill: Quite. Mr. Green: We are very anxious to keep the staff at its proper size. Mr. Pickersgill: Anything that I can do to strengthen the minister's hand I will do. I can think of one argument he might use on the Minister of Finance. It is that the salary Supply-Public Works of half a dozen engineers in each of the provinces might save thousands and thou- sands and naybe millions of dollars in unem- ployment insurance and unemployment assist- ance in this country, because the bottleneck in so many of these projects is supervisory, technical and engineering staff. I know, because, when I made supplications year after year to the Department of Public Works when I was on the other side of the house, I had it explained to me by the former minister. He convinced me because I know he was right, that they just could not get on with these projects because they could not take engineers from other work which was more in the national interest; but that is not true today. Mr. Caron: Did I understand the minister to say a while ago that the increase of over $1 million was due mostly to increases in salaries? Mr. Green: The increases were, salaries and wages, $792,591; travelling and removal expenses, $150,000; freight, express and car- tage, $2,000; telephones and telegrams, $36,000; office stationery, supplies, et cetera, $43,000; materials and supplies, $71,000; acquisition of equipment, $10,000; repairs and upkeep of the equipment, $30,000. Mr. Caron: Has there been a general increase in the whole department or is it just increases in some branches of the Depart- ment of Public Works? Mr. Green: Most of the increase in salaries is for new positions. There are some other increases involved in it but the bulk of the sum is for new positions. Mr. Caron: Have any increases been given to the lower bracket salaried people in the department during the last year? Mr. Green: A general increase was approved by the present government after coming into power last summer. Mr. Pickersgill: On the recommendation of the preceding government. Mr. Caron: Does that apply to the lower bracket salary people? Mr. Green: That applied to everybody. Mr. Caron: The -civil servants or the hourly rated people? Mr. Green: The general increase applied, of course, to the permanent civil servants. Those employees on an hourly basis have their pay adjusted from time to time accordingly. They were not covered by it. The amounts are set by the Department of Labour. Mr. Caron: I did not quite understand the last sentence. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works Mr. Green: The prevailing rate employees have increases made from time to time. They are not included in the general adjustment. The prevailing rate increases are on recom- mendation of the Department of Labour. Mr. Caron: Are tradesmen paid according to the rates paid union tradesmen in Ottawa? Mr. Green: Generally speaking I believe that is the case but this again is settled by the Department of Labour. Mr. Caron: Is it not the understanding that salaries will follow those paid to union men outside the government? Mr. Green: My difficulty here is that this is a question of policy of the labour depart- ment, not of the Department of Public Works. Therefore I am unable to give an answer to that question. The Department of Labour recommends the rates to the Department of Public Works and we set them accordingly. Mr. Caron: Can we get an answer when we come to the Department of Labour or can the minister get an answer for us before we finish his estimates? Mr. Pickersgill: Could the minister perhaps prepare a memorandum and present it the next time his estimates are before the committee? Mr. Green: This is a question which should be taken up when the estimates of the Department of Labour are under consideration. Mr. Caron: The minister is quite sure that they will not refer the matter back to the Department of Public Works? Mr. Green: I understand these rates have always been set by the Department of Labour. This is not a new practice. It bas always been the case. Mr. Caron: In the estimates book there is a total amount of $191,426,540 shown for 1957-58. Has the money all been spent or does that comprise the estimates for 1957-58 as they were presented or should have been presented? Mr. Green: That figure of $191 million odd is the revised figure. Mr. Caron: Has that money been spent for 1957-58? Mr. Green: Approximately 97 per cent has been spent. Mr. Caron: And inasmuch as no estimates were brought forward for that period that money was all spent through governor gen- eral's warrants. [Mr. Caron.] Mr. Green: Most of the amount was cov- ered by interim supply passed from time to time by the last parliament. The balance was covered by governor general's warrants. Mr. Caron: Without the estimates being discussed. Mr. Green: They are to be brought up by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Caron: Will we have the details of what has been spent by governor general's warrants some time during this session so that we can discuss them? Mr. Green: That is to be brought before the house by the Minister of Finance. Mr. Caron: I want to know if we will have the details before us for the amount which has been spent through governor general's warrants or the other part covered by in- terim supply. Mr. Green: My understanding is that those figures will be available. Mr. Caron: They will be furnished. Mr. Chevrier: May I revert for a moment to the confidential reports my hon. friend referred to the other day in connection with harbour and river improvements. Do these reports cover all of the ports along the St. Lawrence? Can the minister give us some idea of the ports with respect to which a special study bas been made and where it is anticipated river and harbour improve- ments will be carried out? Mr. Green: In connection with these lower St. Lawrence ports the main or supplementary estimates contain substantial items for port improvements at Rimouski, Seven Islands and Sorel and in addition there are sizeable items for Pointe au Pere and Riviere du Loup. During the last winter investigations were made of harbours at Matane, Pointe au Pere, Rimouski and Riviere du Loup on the south side of the St. Lawrence as well as Chandler and Gaspe farther east on the Gaspe peninsula. In addition, of course, there have been investigations made at the lake- head, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, Sarnia, Kingston, Cornwall, and there may have been others. Mr. Chevrier: Are these investigations made in the light of the new traffic that is likely to ensue following the opening of the 27- foot channel? Mr. Green: Oh yes, that is one of the main reasons for making these investigations. We have a team go out composed of representa- tives from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. JUNE 13, 1958 Mr. Chevrier: Is any specific attention be- ing given to the north shore of the St. Law- rence river where, because of iron ore development, railway installation and natur- al resources development, additional facil- ities will be required? Mr. Green: As the hon. member knows, some of the ports I have mentioned are on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. Mr. Chevrier: Can the minister give the amounts involved? Mr. Green: They appear in the estimates. Mr. Chevrier: I do not want them in de- tail as it would take too long. Can he give the over-all amount for the ports east of Montreal? Mr. Green: We have not got figures here worked out on that basis. Some of the ports on the St. Lawrence, of course, do not come under the Department of Public Works. They are under the national harbours board. I refer to Montreal, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers- Mr. Chevrier: You have named them all. Item agreed to. 591. General administration-further amount required, $102,800. Mr. Batten: I want to make one or two remarks and one or two inquiries concerning public buildings in the province of New- foundland and in my own constituency. The Deputy Chairman: Item 591 is to be found in the supplementary estimates at page 8. It is another administration item. Mr. Batten: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until we get to item 329. Mr. Green: The supplementary estimate is to increase the general administration item by $102,800. The details will be found at page 27 of the supplementary estimates. Mr. Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question? Is it not a little bit unusual to start taking the sup- plementary estimates before we have finished with the main estimates? I have a feeling that greater progress would be made in the committee if we could go ahead with the main estimates and then deal with the sup- plementary estimates later. Mr. Green: I do not care one way or the other. It has been done both ways. Some departments take the supplementaries with the regular estimates. Others do not do that. Mind you, it makes for a clearer explanation of the total amount that has been spent on the different items if the supplementaries are dealt with at the same time as the main estimates. Supply-Public Works Mr. Pickersgill: If the minister would rather do it that way, it is all right with me. The Deputy Chairman: Shall vote 591 carry? Mr. Caron: Then it is the intention of the minister to discuss the supplementaries first and then come back to the other ones? Mr. Green: That is right. Item agreed to. Public buildings construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and im- provements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects- 329. Newfoundland, $3,461,474. Mr. Batten: I should like to make one or two remarks and also ask a couple of ques- tions about the public buildings in the prov- ince of Newfoundland and in the riding of Humber-St. George's. May I first refer to the public building which now exists at St. Andrew's. This is a small public building. It came into federal ownership as one of the terms of confederation. It is now, I think, long past its usefulness. It is no longer able to serve the community as a post office. It is poorly located. Over the last few months there has been some considerable correspon- dence concerning this building. I wonder whether the minister is in a position now to give me any information as to what can be done about this problem. Mr. Green: We will look into the question of the building at this particular location. Mr. Baiten: May I refer to one other build- ing. There is one other public building in my constituency that needs attention, the public building situated at Port au Port. This build- ing is not as old as the one now existing at St. Andrew's. However, it is a very small building and it is completely inadequate to handle the mail that must be handled at this particular point, inasmuch as Port au Port is the distribution centre for the whole penin- sula. There is a small anteroom or waiting room on the outside and then there is the inner office which, even for an average mail, is too small to accommodate the number of bags of mail that arrive, and the mail has to be handled in the outside part where it is trodden on by people coming to be served at the post office. I think there has been some discussion as to what are the possibilities of making this building a little bit larger and more suitable for handling the work it is re- quired to handle. I wonder whether the min- ister, when giving me some information about HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works the post office at St. Andrew's would also give me some information concerning the building at Port au Port? Mr. Green: The hon. member will be glad to hear that we are now making plans for a building at Port au Port and we hope to get it started this year. Mr. Batten: I thank the minister for that information. Is he in a position now to give me any indication as to what type of building this will be and when tenders will be called? Mr. Green: It is an addition to the present building. Mr. Pickersgill: That is not quite so cheerful. Mr. Green: The hon. member for Burin- Burgeo raised a question about the buildings at Burin and at Harbour Buffett. The former was authorized on March 26 of this year and the latter on March 3 of this year. One of them is already under construction. We hope to get them both built this year. He made some other quite interesting sug- gestions. For example, he urged the use of local veneer. He said that the veneer plant had been unable to qualify. My instructions are that the specifications were not such as to prevent bids by the Newfoundland plant. They allow for birch plywood. Then he also asked us to build a larger building at Marys- town. The Department of Public Works does not necessarily set the size of the building. That will depend upon the requests made by the other departments; for example, in this case the request was made by the Post Office Department. We are adding 200 extra square feet to the building at Marystown. There was some trouble there in connection with getting a site, apparently. Mr. Carter: No. Mr. Green: I am wrong. The hon. member complained about the site not being large enough. Mr. Carter: That is right. Mr. Green: The view of the officials is that the site is adequate. One difficulty was that the suggestion was made by the town that this building should also house a civic centre and provincial offices. If it were to do that, of course it might have to be bigger. How- ever, we are not in the business of providing office space for civic centres or for pro- vincial governments. Then he raised the point of using local labour. In our contracts there are standard provisions that local labour must be employed. In addition to that, we are constantly on the watch for ways of making sure that the [Mr. Batten.] local people get as much as possible of the business where projects are being built in their district. It is not as easy as it looks because when we call for tenders somebody may come in with a lower tender who may not be doing business in the particular centre where the project is being built and we cannot main- tain a low tender basis of doing business and at the same time refuse to give a con- tract to a man who happens : Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statements 1 made last year I believe them ta be as implicitly correct today as they were then. I arn going ta recaîl the circumstances in connection with the actions af my hon. friend's associates and the government of that day which brought about the words which I used on that occasion, words which were in keeping with the occasion. The first occasion when there was interference, and it was interference, was when Professor Ostry was ta be given the opportunity ta speak HOUSE 0F COMMONS .Teievision Interview-Alle ged Inter ference over the C.B.C. on the life and Urnes of Mr. Mackenzie King. It was advertised that he would do so and that revelation was received with anticipation by the people of Canada as a whole. But for some reason that broad- cast was neyer proceeded with. Indeed, it was withdrawn. When we brought the matter of interference with the C.B.C. before the goverfiment of the day there was flot one member of that government, including the Leader of the Op- position (Mr. Pearson), who was able ta stand up and say that the government of that day had flot interfered directly in order to prevent a broadcast which would have hurt the susceptibilities of some of my hon. friends opposite. They did flot dare stand Up and say they had not made impossible the carrying out of the broadcast in question. Mr. PickersgiIl: That statement is not correct. Mr. Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker- Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker- Mr. Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker- Mr. Pearkes: Sit down. Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order? Mr. Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 arn rising on a point of order to point out that what the Prime Minister has stated with regard ta this particular incident is totally inaccurate. Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. member that that is scarcely a point of order. If the hon. member wishes ta take exception ta what is being said by the speaker who has the floor and the floor is flot yielded he should refrain until the speaker is finished. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker- Mr. Diefenbaker: I have the floor. There is no point of order if it is sirnilar ta the last one. Mr. Pickersgill: Who is the Speaker here? Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, speaking ta the point of order- Mr. Green: There is no point of order. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, you had ruled- Mr. Speaker: I have already made my rul- ing and it is not open ta the hon. member ta discuss that point. Mr. Martin (Essex East): It is quite right that yau mnade a ruling but under the practice [Mr. Diefenbaker.] of the -house it is open ta representatives af political groups ta rise and, with respect, seek ta indicate ta the Speaker that pas- sibly he has overlooked something in the ruling he has made. Mr. Speaker: That is true- Mr. Pickersgill: There are distinguished precedents. Mr. Speaker: -if it is done bef are the ruling is made. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I rase, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: I arn sorry I did flot see the hon. member but I must consider the incident closed. Mr. Martini (Essex East): Mr. Speaker- Somne han. Members: Order. Mr. Martin (Essex East): May I address myseif ta the Speaker for whom, of course, I have the greatest respect, as he knows. Surely this group or any hon. member af the bouse will flot be denied the opportunîty of having at least one member make representations with regard ta a ruling which the Speaker has made. I arn not going ta persist with the point because a! my respect for Your Honour but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you will want ta give consideration ta my right in these circumstances ta comment on your ruling. Mr. Speaker: May I say ta the hon. mern- ber, and I think he is an experienced member of the house wha will recognize the practice, that the Speaker does, if he feels it necessary, hear members ta assist him in coming to a conclusion. Naw in this case I had fia douht about the point of order, which was really not a point of order but a question of con- tradictîng sornething that had been said. I did flot see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), or I wauld have been glad ta hear him. After I have conc]uded mny ruling I hope he will not seek ta contradict the Speaker. Mr. Diefenbaker: It is no surprise ta me, Mr. Speaker, that as I speak and refer ta those things in the past within the sorrowful memory of rny hon. friends it causes thern ta rise on questions of privilege. I had painted out that they did, in fact, interfere with the C.B.C. in cannection with the hroadcast ta which I made reference earlier, an anticipated one, an advertised one by Mr. Ostry- Mr. Pickersgill: Wauld the Prime Minister permit a question? Mr. Diefenbaker: Yes. JUNE Mr. Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house the evidence on which he makes those statements? Mr. Diefenbaker: The evidence is very clear, and when the evidence was brought to the attention of the house there was no denial. Mr. Pickersgill: It was denied. Mr. Diefenbaker: A denial now. Mr. Pickersgill: It was denied at the time. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has just heard the member for Bonavista-Twillingate deny the statement and the Prime Minister, under the rules of this house is obliged to accept that denial without any reservation. That is the point I had in mind a few moments ago. I submit to you with great confidence that the Prime Minister must accept at once the statement made by an hon. member in this house that a denial was made. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I am speaking to a point of order. Mr. Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is endea- vouring to raise issues that have no- Mr. Martin (Essex East): I have raised a point of order. Mr. Speaker: The hon. member raised a point of order that the Prime Minister should accept a statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Would he indicate what statement it was that should be ac- cepted? Mr. Martin (Essex East): There was a statement that there had been interference with regard to the Ostry broadcast, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate denied that statement. The Prime Minister persisted as though no denial had been made. I say that under the rules of the house it is not open to any hon. member to fail to accept a denial made by another hon. member. I am asking Your Honour to ask the Prime Minister to accept the statement of the member who bas just made the denial. Mr. Green: On this point of order, may I point out that the hon. member for Essex East is completely distorting the rules. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had made some statement with regard to what he, himself, had said, then perhaps the Prime Minister should accept it. He did not speak for himself, he spoke for the former govern- ment as a whole. Now, the fact that he says 16, 1958 1175 Television Interview-Alleged Interference the former government did not do something surely does not mean we have to accept that as gospel. Mr. Martin (Essex East): The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did deny that state- ment. Mr. Diefenbaker: Deny what statement? Mr. Martin (Essex East): The statement made by the Prime Minister, who persisted in saying there was no denial; I will not accept any denial, says the Prime Minister. This is clearly contrary to the rules of the bouse, and is a practice in which the Prime Minister should not indulge. Mr. Pickersgill: Perhaps since I have been dragged in to this, I could say one word. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. An hon. Member: You jumped in, head first. Mr. Pickersgill: What I asserted was that there was a denial at the time, as Hansard will show. There was no interference by the government in respect of that broadcast. Mr. Speaker: I think that we are confusing two matters. I asked the hon. member for Essex East what words he felt should have been accepted. If it were a denial by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate of a statement made by him in his place that he had not interfered with the C.B.C., then I feel sure the Prime Minister would have been bound, and would have accepted the statement. But as I recall what transpired it was not a denial of what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said about him- self. I think we can proceed, and perhaps restrain our susceptibilities in a matter of this kind where obviously things will be said which are within the normal course of party conflict, and which would not be ac- ceptable on both sides of the house. Mr. Diefenbaker: To return once more to the trend of my thoughts, I was dealing with a subject, Mr. Speaker, which does lead to the wounding of the susceptibilities of my hon. friends opposite, namely the broadcast that was advertised to take place by Bernard Ostry. The people of Canada were interested in finding out what this author had to say. However, the government of that day had in its membership those who did not desire that the people of Canada should become aware of some of the things which had been dealt with in the book. At the time, there was a question raised as to who had actually brought about the cancellation of that much anticipated broadcast. We were unable to find out. The only information available was that information would not be given. 1176 HOUSE OF Television Interview-Aleged Interference Then came the occasion mentioned by my hon. friend on the 26th, 27th and 28th of March last, in which there was again an example of the kind of thing which should not take place. In this case the then prime minister-I am not going into the facts be- cause he is not in this house-heard a broad- cast by a young professor in Winnipeg who referred to a subject that sometimes arouses the susceptibilities of the Leader of Opposi- tion, namely the kind of policy that Canada had at the time of Suez when Canada, through the hon. gentleman, cast a vote against Britain and France and placed them in the same position as the U.S.S.R. as countries which had departed from the course that they should have followed. This is one subject about which my hon. friends do not like to hear. On that occasion, the then prime minister wrote a letter in which he pointed out-at least we understand this is what the letter contained because we were never able to see it-that this young man, who had only been in Canada for a few months, did not have that background of understanding education or appreciation, to be able to speak to the Canadian people through the medium of the C.B.C. In other words, the direction was clear, that he should no longer appear as a commentator on the C.B.C. Now, those were the two examples that were brought to the attention of the house as examples of interference with the rights of the people of Canada to obtain information. I now come to the matter in question. My hon. friend really revealed the reason why he is so exercised, because he said that they have not yet found out about the free trade offer. Might I suggest that he should bring up something new. They used all that during the election campaign-bring up something new. Get a new speech. Mr. Pearson: You get a new one every day. Mr. Diefenbaker: This was used over and over again during the election campaign. It was said that facts had been concealed. There was nothing concealed here. The ques- tion was asked as to whether or not this would be on the agenda. It was a joint inter- view and I was present on that occasion. The question of whether or not it would be dis- cussed at the conference this fall is something which will have to be determined in due course. However, there was no concealment; members of the press gallery asked question after question regarding this matter and the prime minister answered them. There was certainly no concealment in so far as the C.B.C. keeping anything from the people was concerned. Last evening Mr. Edgar McInnis, the president of the council of the Canadian [Mr. Diefenbaker.} COMMONS institute of international affairs, interviewed the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that interview was quite lengthy. There was nothing kept from the Canadian people; it was indeed a full and free discussion. I say that this simply indicates how short of issues are my hon. friends opposite when they endeavour to raise such matters in order to obscure the real issues facing this country. Mr. Pickersgill: Rubbish. Mr. Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is the best judge in the house of rubbish. Mr. Pickersgill: I have listened to enough of it from the Prime Minister. Mr. Diefenbaker: I have nothing to with- draw. There was no interference with the C.B.C. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Diefenbaker: My hon. friends have suddenly developed an affection for the in- dependence of that body which they did not have during their days in office, whereas we know today, as from day to day we listen to the broadcasts and the commentators, the C.B.C. is not under the same degree of control, whether by direct influence or whether it was subconscious in its effect, which brought about a situation in this country where some of the commentators did not enjoy the freedom they enjoy today, to speak fearlessly regardless of any circumstances. The former situation was made clear by the communication to the C.B.C. to the effect that a certain commen- tator had not spoken as he should have done and did not have a proper realization of Canadian conditions and that he had trodden on the delicate toes of the government then in power. My hon. friend has spoken with exaggerated exuberance about this matter in his desire to leave the impression, which cannot be left with the Canadian people who have listened to the C.B.C. since June 21, 1957 and have heard day by day the broadcasts over the various channels of that body, that criticism has been restrained. The government has at no time or in any way interfered with the C.B.C. When my hon. friend reads what I said in 1957 he will be aware of my views in this matter. I repeat my words, that as long as this government is in power-and that will be a long time if this kind of picayune criticisn persists- there will be no interference, directly or in- directly, with the criticisms of commentators or others, nor will there be any interference with the right of the people of Canada to secure full information on any and evcry subject. I think it makes it clear that this has been the state of affairs since June 21 last, JUNE when one remembers that the only example which could be raised by the opposition ini no way indicates any interference with -the C.B.C. The information in this case had ai- ready been given in detail to the press con- ference and had been broadcast over the C.B.C., in part or in full, and last evening the fullest possible discussion was allowed on this matter during the course of the interview of the prime minister by Mr. McInnis. The only thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that my hon. friends have harassed them- selves because they do flot have the informa- tion on the so-called free trade proposition which was advanced to this government, and they are adoptîng this method of bringing to the attention of the country that they have not been able to secure this information and so are endeavouring to hold this government responsible for interfering with the C.B.C., which is something it neyer has done,. will not now do and does flot intend to do. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) bas referred to this matter as being pîcayune and has gîven the impression that this is a mountain made out of a moleblill. These were some of the words he used when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) today asked him some questions on the orders of the day. I arn sure there are many precedents in speeches of the right hon, gentleman which clearly indicate that this is an important question. One is, I think, understandably surprised by the words of the Prime Mînister, particularly in view of his well-known in- terest in matters affecting freedom in ail its aspects, in that he should have regarded the raising of this particular question as not so important as is being suggested. One is cer- tainly justified in saying that the Prime Min- ister is not doing himself justice, having in mind the views expressed in bis capacity as a private member in other days. The Prime Minister says this is a mountain made out of a molehill but he has gone further in the speech which he has just made. 1 suggest that this, as an explanation of what bas already been said, only adds to the confused situation wîth respect to wbat the Prime Minister actually did say and does not clarify what he perhaps intended to convey. The Prime Minister's remarks on the orders of the day were recalled by the Leader of the Opposition but 1 think they deserve to be mentioned again. The Prime Minister said: "We discussed varlous mat- ters, it being understood that thereafter there would be a joint conference before the C.B.C. When we came out we met the Canadian Broa dcasting Corporation repre- sentatives, and just before the interview 18, 1958 1177 Television Interview-Ale ged Inter ference commenced the Prime Minister asked what the questions were."1 He asked what the questions were and in this context, and in the words used by the Prime Minister that query by the British prime minister could only mean one thing, and that is: What questions are going to be put to me by those who are going to interview us? That interpretation, I say, is the only interpreta- tion which can reasonably be made. Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the hon. gentleman what he is reading from? Mr. Martin (Essex East): I arn reading the observations made by the Prime Minister during the course of this afternoon, observa- tions already referred to by the Leader of the Opposition and commented on by the right hon, gentleman. I was saying that when the British prime minister asked what the questions were, in the context of the language used by the right hon, gentleman they could only mean that the British prime minister was tbinking of only one thing, that is the questions that had been prepared, presum- ably by the C.B.C. for submission to the British prime minister for reply by hlm. Mr. Diefenbaker: What does the hon. mem- ber mean, "prepared by the press"? Mr. Martin (Essex East): By the C.B.C., I should say. And now that the Prime Minister bas raised this, it is a matter which touches not only the C.B.C., because, after ahl, although the C.B.C. is representative of radio and television it does represent the press in the larger sense of the word, and this is certainly a matter which can be con- sidered as involving not only the freedom of radio and television but also the freedom of the press itself. The Prime Minister went on, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, as I recall it to say: "The first question on the list of two was whether or not the representation or the so-called proposai advanced last September regarding free trade with the United Kingdom would be on the agenda of the trade conference this fall, and I said 'no, no' ". Now that answer, that observation when related to the previous sentence of the right hon. gentleman, certainly presents a picture in which it is clear what happened. Certain questions were put by the representatives o! the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the British prime minister and, for some rea- son, which has been made manifest not only on Friday last but for many months, the Prime Minister seemingly is reluctant to have any unnecessary mention made o! this pro- posai wbich was brought forward, first of ail, by the chancellor of the exchequer last Television Interview-Aileged Interference autumn and more recently, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, by the president of the board of trade three or four weeks ago in Montreal. The Prime Minister may have good reasons for not wanting this opinion of the British proposal discussed. After all, the Prime Minister has access as leader of the govern- ment to information not open to those of us on this side of the house. But he could at least give reasons for minimizing the number of occasions when this question could be dis- cussed. But in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is the duty of the opposition to ascertain from the government and from the Prime Minister what its attitude with regard to this proposal is. The Prime Minister obviously minimizes the importance of the British proposal. Today he does not even call it a proposal; he says it is "a so-called proposal". That is not what the chancellor of the exchequer said. That is not what Sir David Eccles, president of the board of trade said; that is not what Mr. Harold Macmillan said in the press confer- ence he gave the other day. We mean business with this proposal put forward by Her Majesty's government, said the British prime minister. It is not a so-called proposal. I know the right hon. gentleman is seeking to minimize his own proposal of last July with regard to diversion by saying it was not a proposal at all, that in fact it was a statement of objective. But the fact is that we have had from the Prime Minister for the first time, in the limited context in which he used it, a mention of the phrase "British free trade proposal". I think this afternoon was the first time he has even mentioned the phrase in this house. In spite of repeated questions directed to him-and the Prime Minister will recall that I put some of them to him myself last fall- it has not been possible to get from the right hon. gentleman any reaction whatsoever re- garding what the government as a whole thinks about this proposal. And not only are we denied this opportunity in the house, but the Prime Minister apparently took the op- portunity, when he was with the British prime minister, of precluding the latter from amplifying details which we on this side of the house have been trying to get from this administration for many months both before and after the election. And if we have not been able to succeed, should those who rep- resent the agencies of communication of this country be denied the opportunity of con- veying to the people of Canada the views of the British government in respect of a matter which they regard as so important not only for the United Kingdom but for Canada and [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] which in the light of the need for interde- pendence, as the British prime minister said, could mean so much to the world at large in these difficult days of international tension. I am sure the Prime Minister has not succeeded this afternoon in satisfying this house that he did not by his manner and speech preclude the British prime minister from making a comment in answer to a question submitted to him by the C.B.C., a question which is of the greatest interest to this house and to this country. That is an unwarranted interference with one of the agencies of communication in Canada which it is our duty, just as it was the Prime Min- ister's duty when he was in opposition and thought there was interference on another occasion, to bring to the attention of the house. The Prime Minister said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition that he meant what he is reported to have said last year at page 2830 of Hansard, and repeated today. Of course, the Prime Minister is a master in the art of diversion. I do not mean trade diver- sion; I mean in the art of diversion in debate and in the debate last year he undertook to give a full answer to the comparable though justified allegations made today by the Leader of the Opposition. Assuming, for argument sake, that the course taken by the Minister of Finance and by the Prime Minister last year with regard to the letter by the former prime minister was valid. That does not in any circumstance justify the action which the Prime Minister took on Friday last. I say: if that course was right a year ago-and I am not saying that it was; I say it was not-that was no reason for the Prime Minister doing what he did on Friday last. As a matter of fact and again assuming for purpose of argument- and I will come to that point later-that there was validity in the position taken last year by the right hon. gentleman and those of his colleagues who sit with him now, compare the difference in the situation; in the one case it was a letter directed in terms apparent for everyone to see and understand- Mr. Diefenbaker: And unproduced. Mr. Martin (Essex East): The hon. gentle- man, apparently, saw it. Mr. Diefenbaker: Have you got it? Mr. Martin (Essex East): He apparently saw it, because he told us all about its terms. It was a letter directed to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the former prime minister denied that it involved the kind of intervention about which the right hon. gentleman complains. But compare that situation with the situation of HOUSE OF COMMONS1178 last Friday. Here are the British prime min- ister and the Prime Minister of Canada. Who seeks to put the question? Is it the president of the C.B.C. or the general manager? No. It is a reporter of ordinary status though, I suspect, of great ability. He obviously would be awed by an intervention by the Prime Minister of Canada. I suggest to the Prime Minister that a comparison of these two situations puts the Prime Minister exactly in the position-only with more reasons attached to him in which he sought to put the former prime minister and whatever the bon. gentleman may say about the incident of last year the fact is there was a denial by the prime minister of that day that he had in any way interfered with the operations of the C.B.C. What is more, any one who knows the character of that right hon. gentleman who formerly sat in the treasury benches knows that any denial made by him is one that would be accepted by any hon. member of this house. The Prime Minister, again resorted to the capacity he has for diversion and of intro- ducing a red herring-a talent which I as a fellow lawyer certainly cannot help but admire- Mr. Green: You are good at it yourself. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I thank my hon. friend for that compliment. The fact is, how- ever, that the Prime Minister on this occa- sion resorted to another red herring. He introduced the Ostry matter. That, too, was denied. There is no evidence-and I challenge the Prime Minister now to produce it-to sup- port his contention that there was any inter- ference. The only evidence he could produce is a statement by the then minister of national revenue who reported on matters having to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora- tion that the C.B.C. had advised him in an answer which they prepared and which he presented in this house for reasons of non- adaptability they had cancelled the program. The Prime Minister did not refer to that and so, when he introduces the Ostry matter, he introduces a matter which like the previous one is not in fact a precedent at all and in no way helps to justify the course which the Prime Minister used when he appeared with the Prime Minister of the United King- dom last Friday during the television inter- view regarding questions being put by the representative of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. By introducing this technique of red herring the Prime Minister said there was no interference in the discussion of these matters. "Why, the president of the Canadian institute of international affairs spoke about this matter on Sunday," said the Prime Minister. 16, 1958 1179 Television Interview-Alleged Interference No one has suggested that this interference by the Prime Minister extends to all pro- grams of the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora- tion. We realize there are limitations in the mobility of the Prime Minister; there are circumstances beyond the physical control of any man. I heard that broadcast by Professor McInnis and I do not recall him saying any- thing about the British free trade proposal but in any event if he did that does not justify the Prime Minister in precluding a representative of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from asking a question on the very same subject of the British prime minister. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister introduced a fourth red herring this after- noon. He mentioned an important incident involving the nations of the world in the matter of Suez. He forgets that that partie- ular incident recalls the very technique which he apparently used on Friday last. I well recall reading in the paper that after the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) had been sworn in he was asked by the newspaper men of this country what he thought about Canada's foreign policy and what he thought about Suez. The Secretary of States for External Affairs replied and said that he agreed fully with the policy of the present Leader of the Opposition, the former secretary of state for external affairs. At that very point my right hon. and genial friend the Prime Minister said, "No, no, no. The policy of this government is exactly as stated by me in parliament." This left the clear implication that anything said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that is contrary to anything the Prime Minister has ever said must not be uttered and must not be communicated to the press and not even reported by the press. The views of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on important matters of that kind apparently must not run counter to what my right hon. friend as leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister of Canada thinks and says. And so the technique of "No, no, no" used on Friday last was on one occasion used on the steps of the building that houses the Supreme Court of Canada after the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs had been sworn in as a member of Her Majesty's privy council. We all realize that the Prime Minister has heavy responsibilities, that he is a busy man. We can very well understand that there are occasions when his over-all consuming in- terest in the problems of the nation and of the world are such that he might do things which as the private hon. member for Prince Albert he certainly would not do and which he certainly has alleged should HOUSE OF COMMONS Television Interview-Alleged Interference not be done. But it is our duty-and I am sure the Prime Minister recognizes it is our duty-to remind him of these excursions into the realm of violation of the kind of freedom which we cherish in this country and which I know he along with every other hon. mem- ber of this bouse would want te see us per- petuate. The hon. gentleman would do well to re- member his own words which the Leader of the Opposition quoted. But if the words quoted by the Leader of the Opposition are effective and bear repetition so, too, do the words of the distinguished Minister of Fi- nance who sits with him. Here is what the Minister of Finance said on March 29, 1957, as recorded at page 2824 of volume 3 of Hansard: As long as I am a member of parliament I certainly intend to defend Mr. Dunton's right to support the policies and defend the programming activities of the corporation even when I disagree with them. But when there is disagreement, sir, let it be in the proper place, let it be in the houses of parliament. Parliament is supreme; parliament is the body to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible. And in this particular if, as appears from the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, Mr. Dunton resisted the attempt of the Prime Minister to influence the programming activities of the C.B.C., then I say- And I ask the present Prime Minister to pay special attention to these words: -then I say this parliament owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Dunton for having stood firmly for a principle that the Prime Minister ought to have been the first to uphold and which at that time he evidently was discarding and repudiating. The Prime Minister might well recall other words of his when at the conclusion of his remarks last year as recorded at page 2831 of Hansard be said: I say to the Prime Minister,- This is the present Prime Minister speaking- -and I do not wish to carry the matter any further, but I hope this will be a lesson to the members of this government that interference, indirectly or directly, direct or subtle,- "No, no, no" might be subtle. -will not be condoned. Interference of this kind can only destroy the independence of the C.B.C. and dry up the wells of information to which the Canadian people are entitled. As I have said, we all appreciate that the Prime Minister has heavy responsibilities. They may have been responsible for the statement be made in this house about the press interview given by the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which remarks, incidentally, Mr. Spaak re- peated in Halifax after he left Ottawa. We can understand the Prime Minister's concern about the remarks he made about trade diver- sion with the United Kingdom. We now have [Mr. Martin (Essex East).j this further incident when the prime minister of the United Kingdom was precluded in his presence from saying to a representative of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation what he thought about a proposal to which this government obviously has not yet given the full and final consideration this question is entitled to receive. I say to the Prime Minis- ter, then, in his own words, "Let this par- ticular occasion be a reminder of the unde- sirability of this kind of action, and let it not happen again, and let it now be remembered as a result of this debate." I say to the Prime Minister, too, why does he not take the country into his confidence and tell us what the British prime minister wanted to say about the proposal? It cer- tainly deserves at least from this government a statement that it is prepared to give this question of British free trade the kind of sympathetic attention that one would expect this government to give to a friendly govern- ment like Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom. That, surely, is not asking too much of the Prime Minister and we all trust he will not make this mistake again. Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin- gate): Mr. Speaker, I am rising because after the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke I confirmed my recollection by consulting Hansard and I would like to make clear from the record itself, from the answers that were given by the then minister who an- swered in this bouse for the C.B.C. what the facts were about this Ostry affair. The first time that I can find it was brought up was at page 881 of Hansard of February 6, 1956. A question was asked by the then member for Humboldt-Melfort, Mr. Bryson, as follows: I should like to direct a question to the minister of national revenue. Why was the discussion on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" cancelled by the C.B.C.? To which Mr. McCann replied: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the C.B.C. about this matter and I am informed that it was not a case of cancelling a program. The C.B.C. reports that, while some consideration was given to the book as a possible subject for a national television net- work discussion, on consideration it was not thought to be a good basis for such a discussion. Now, there were a number of other refer- ences to this at various times which I think it would be trespassing on the time of the house to refer to, although I would be quite happy to give the page references to anyone who wished to have them, but it was finally brought up by the then member for Eglinton, now the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fleming), at page 1462 of Hansard of February 23, 1956, as follows: Is the Minister of National Revenue now in a position to answer the question I asked him on February 15 as to who it was wlthin the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who made the decision that the programn on "The Âge of Mackenzie King" by Ferns and Oatry should not proceed? The question is to be found at page 1198 of Hcrnsard. Mr. McCann replied as follows: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation takes full responsibility for their attitude. I may say that on examination of the other references I find that there is not the f aîntest suggestion of any evidence at any point any- where that any member of the former goverfi- ment ever discussed this matter with the C.B.C., and I happen to know of my own personal knowledge that this matter had been fully determined by the C.B.C. before the members of the government, with one ex- ception and that exception happened to be myseif, had ever heard about it, or any proposai 0f that kind. I know this because I mentioned the matter to Mr. Dunton, and he told me when I first mentioned it to him that the C.B.C. had already decided that it was flot a suitable program-these are the facts -and that he had discussed it with no mem- ber of the government. Mr. Pallett: Except with you. Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): He discussed it with you. Mr. Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman had been listening attentively he would have heard what I saîd. I asked Mr. Dunton the question and he told me the decîsion had already been reached. Mr. Diefenbaker: Was the hon. member a member of the government at that time? Mr. Pickersgill: Yes, 1 was a rnember of the government in 1956; 1 was a member o! the government from 1953, and I had no dis- cussion whatsoever on this matter with Mr. Dunton; I just asked him the question. Mr. Brooks: Why? Mr. Pickersgil: And he told me there was going to be no such program. I asked the question out of curiosity that I think was proper curiosity. I had the assurance from Mr. Dunton at that time, as I say, that no member of the goverament had discussed the niatter with him, no member at ail. Mr. Pallei: Exoept you. Mr. Cardiff: The hon. member just told us that he discussed it with in and he was a member o! the government. Mr. Pickersgill: No. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might repeat what I said for the beefit of the hon, gentleman. I said that I met Mr. Dunton and I asked him about this prograin about which I had read in the press. Television Inte-rview-Alleged Interference Mr. Cardiff: Why? Mr. Pickersgill: About this proposed pro- gram, and he told me then there was going to be no such program and that is ail that happened.ý Mr. PaIlett: What was the question? There is going to be no program, is there? Mr. Pickersgill: As to the letter that Mr. St. Laurent wrote to Mr. Dunton about which the Prime Mînister seemed to know so much, we ail know, of course, that the Prime Min- ister is a great authority on letters he has neyer seen. He admitted he had neyer seen this letter and yet hie presumed to tell us what he believed was in it, as he presumed to go back and forth across the country and talk about other letters at a time when he had never seen them. I notice the Prime Minister has said very littie about them since he has had an opportunity to see them. Mr. Diefenbaker: What letters are they? Mr. Pickersgill: The Prime Minister re- members very weil certain correspondence between prime ministers. Mr. Diefenbaker: Which prime ministers? Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. St. Laurent and Sir Anthony Eden. The Prime Minister discussed the correspondence frequently on the plat- formn before he became Prime Minister but I notice he has had nothing to say about it since he became Prime Minister. Mr. Diefenbaker: I have had no reason to say anything. Mr. Pickersgill: There neyer was any reason. I say that the Prime Minister has become quite an authority on letters he has never seen. These are just two examples. The Prime Minister, of course, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) pointed out a few minutes ago, is a past master, and I am not in his league at ail, and I do not pretend to be. He is a past master at the art of diversion, and one of the most ex- traordinary of his diversions today, I think, was to bring up this oid question of that famous vote at the United Nations. I thought we would not hear any more about that after the occasion at Geneva only a few weeks ago when the high commissioner for Canada, no doubt on instructions from the Prime Minister, voted with Russia against Great Britain, France and the United States as well. Mr. Diefenbaker: Was it condemning Britain as an aggressor? Mr. PickercUgI: No, neither was the other vote. There, Mr. Speaker, is the best possible exaxnple of the Prime Minlster's diversion of JUNE le. 1958 1181 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Unemployment Insurance the facts because that vote at the United Nations, as the Prime Minister ought to know, had nothing to do with condemning anybody. It was the question of putting an item on the agenda. In those days, off course, the items on the agenda were known. Now they are unknown. I find myseif disturbed about what the Prime Minister had to say. The most dis- turbing thing this afternoan was the very serious refiection that the Prime Minister made upon the management off the C.B.C. The Prime Minister implied, and in fact, almost said, that since June 21, 1957, the C.B.C. had been free to broadcast criticism off the government and that it had not been free before. 1 do not know what the Prime Minister did about listening to the C.B.C. before June 21, but some of us on this side of the house thought there were a good many programs on the C.B.C. which were at least somewhat critical of the then occupants off the treasury benches, and I think I have heard nothing on the C.B.C. since June 21 any more critical than a fair amount off the criticism that we heard on the C.B.C. before June 21. Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South): Because we are doing s0 well. Mr. Pickersgill: I believe it is a very good thing that there should be criticismn of the government on the C.B.C. I tbink it was a good thing when we were in office, I think it is a good thing stili and I hate ta see any- thing whatever done that will in any way jeopardize the independence off the C.B.C. If we need a bill off rights in sa far as matters affecting parliament are concerned, surely the first right we need ta safeguard is the right off free expression on the air. It does seem ta me that it is very odd indeed, when this appears ta bave been called into question by the Prime Minister himself with bis famous "no, no, no," that the Prime Minister should then suggest that those who raise the question in the house are raising a question that is picayune. Surely freedom of speech in parliament and outside it is the most fundamental question off ail. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-ALLEGED DIS- CRIMINATION IN PAYMENT 0F BENEFITS Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I do not think we got very far with the last grievance but I hope we can get a littie farther with this one. It is a matter in- volving some hundreds off people in the city off Vancouver, including a considerable num- ber in my own constituency 0f Vancouver East. I have always found it very difficuit ta understand why the government has flot seen fit ta alter the federal regulations pertaining [Mr. Pickersgill.] ta eligibility for unemployment insurance whereby they naw deny the apportunity and right ta people drawing unemployment insur- ance benefits ta try ta obtain employment in the longshoring trade even if only for a few hours. I do nat know the reasons for the regulation because ta the best off my knowl- edge it applies anly ta the longshoring trade. If a persan is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and in order ta help him- self gets a few hours work in any other trade and earns a few dollars, he does flot become ineligible ta continue drawing bis unemploy- ment insurance benefits, but if he gets even as littie as two and a haif haurs work as a longshoreman he is immediately denied the right ta draw unemployment insurance in the two week period that is involved. To me this is a most iniquitous regulation. I could give a great number off examples but I will refer only ta ane in order ta prove my contention. This case came ta my attention recently. It concerns one off my constituants who by occupation is a logger. Ha has been unem- ployad and has bean drawing unemplay- ment insurance sînce Dacamber 14, 1957. Re- cently ha dacidad ha would try ta get cm- ployment somawhera and he sought work as a longshoreman. To get work as a longshora- man you have ta obtain what is known as a stevedore's ragistration number. He did s0 and he worked for two and a haif hours on Tuesday, May 27. He earned $6.50. On tha following day, which happened ta be the day for payment off bis unemploymant insurance benefit, he received bis unamployment insur- ance cheque for $30. He made out a statutory declaration as raquirad by law advising the unemployment insuranca commission office in Vancouver that he had warked two and a baîf bours as a longshoreman and had earned $6.50. Ha was immedîately told that because he had worked two and a baif hours as a longshoraman ha was flot eligible ta draw bis $30 and would have ta wait for two weeks until tha payroll statemant off the company employing the longshoreman bad been checked. He was denied payment although he had only worked two and a haîf hours as a long- shoreman. This man is married and has two childran, a young girl off seven and a haîf and a boy twa years and three months aid. There was fia food at ail for the family and he was flot eligible for any other assistance. It was just by the graca off God that we were able ta have the Salvation Army provide bîm with tamporary relief. When the case was appaaled ta the unem- ployment insurance commission in Vancouvar the officiaIs were most co-operative and help- fui but they said thare was notbing tbey could do about it because off the regulation of the commission in Ottawa and that they had to abide by it. Here is a rather amazing situation. The chief claims agent-I forget his exact title but I think that is correct- in the unemployment insurance office in Van- couver told this man that if he would give up his stevedoring registration number he could immediately pay him his unemploy- ment insurance. This man was trying to obtain a little bit of work in order to get some money to help his family but because he did so in the longshoring field and although he only worked for two and a half hours his endeavours to become a useful and productive member of society were curtailed and ham- pered. The only way he can draw his unem- ployment insurance benefits is by giving up his stevedoring permit number. As I said, the employees in the office in Vancouver were most co-operative and help- ful but they said they could not do anything about it because of the Ottawa regulations. I have only cited one case but I could refer the minister to hundreds of a similar nature. This is an absolutely vicious and iniquitous prac- tice. It is a vicious, iniquitous regulation. I felt that I should draw this grievance to the attention of the government because it should be correced immediately. The matter probably comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) but unfor- tunately he has been away for a great many days. However, I note the evident interest of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) who also comes from Vancouver and who knows something about the longshoring trade and the unemployment situation there. If he cannot give the matter personal consideration I trust that he will see that it is drawn to the attention of the proper officials to see if the situation cannot be corrected. Although I am not going to go into details at the moment I hope the government will also look into the situation in the city of Vancouver as far as the payment of unem- ployment insurance benefits to longshoremen is concerned. To the best of my knowledge they are the only group who in respect of unemployment insurance are classified as second class Canadians in that different regu- lations apply to them from those that apply to people engaged in any other occupation, regulations of such a nature that these men pay more and receive less when it comes to benefits. I know that in the past a brief was pre- sented to the government and I was informed only this morning that a new brief is being prepared for presentation. I am not going into this matter at the moment except to draw it to the attention of the government. In so far as this other matter is concerned, this major grievance where a casual worker Pipe Lines-Labour Conditions for only 2j hours was eut off unemployment insurance, I hope for speedy action by the government. Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Si. George's): Mr. Speaker, in so far as this question of unemploymênt insurance is concerned, I should like to bring to the attention of the house a problem concerning young people who, being entitled to unemployment in- surance benefits, try to use their spare time by attending local schools and are denied the right to draw their unemployment in- surance benefits. There is something rather unfair about this particular regulation. I have a number of people in my riding who during the summer engaged in the fish- ing industry and were thereby well qualified for unemployment insurance benefits during the winter. Employment was extremely dif- ficult to get, and rather than spend the time doing nothing they decided to go back to school. The moment they entered the school their unemployment insurance benefits were cut off. In my opinion there is something wrong when a young lad qualifies himself for unemployment insurance benefits, and then is denied those benefits because he tries to use his spare time profitably. If I may put it another way, it seems to me there is something wrong with a scheme of this kind which pays a young man to waste his time. I would say again that this is one problem which certainly needs some investigation. It is a question that needs very careful attention. At the moment, it does appear that these regulations governing un- employment insurance are a little too rigid in many cases and need the attention of the unemployment insurance commission. NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION-REPORTED UNSATIS- FACTORY LABOUR CONDITIONS Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins): I should like to raise another matter which appears day by day to become more important in this country. I am referring to the situation with regard to natural gas, and all its aspects across this country. No useful purpose will be served by going into past history, with which most of us are familiar. Certainly, the history should be familiar to the government because this matter had a great deal to do with the fact the government is sitting on that side of the bouse today. There are many references on the record also concerning the change of heart the government has had since they left this side of the house concern- ing the trans-Canada pipe line issue. I should like to deal in more detail with what might be called some of the side issues that have been raised with regard to this great Canadian utility. It appears to me JUNE 16, 1958 1183 Pipe Lines-Labour Conditions that this whole issue of natural gas, trans- Canada pipe lines and the distributing lines, is nothing more nor less than an evil tree which, with all its evil branches, seems to be spreading across this country. Conceived in the rape of our natural resources by people who were referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as those Texas buccaneers, this evil tree has grown in the west and has spread towards the east, with every one of its branches appearing to be just as trouble- some and just as evil as the tree itself. We have seen nothing but labour problems all the way across the country, starting with the infamous back-door agreement which was signed with a hit-and-run union before the employees were hired. They were forced into a union which they had never seen, the stewards of which they had never seen and which could not properly serve their interests. This master contract was signed in Alberta and covered all future employees. We have seen some of the results of this action. There was the big strike at the head of the lakes around the Hearst area which tied up the whole operation for a period of three weeks last winter. The federal Depart- ment of Labour had to step in on that occa- sion in an effort to settle the matter so that the company could proceed with clearing the right of way and laying the pipe. The troubles did not end there. In fact, they were just getting nicely started. On two different occasions during the month of March I had to appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) because clauses of this agreement, signed under the supervision of and with the assistance of the Department of Labour, were being violated. I should like to compliment the minister at this stage upon the speed with which he acted to correct the situation. On one particular occasion I sent a telegram to the minister's office one afternoon, and the following morning I received a telephone call from one of the top officials of Trans-Canada. At six o'clock the house took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Martin (Timmins): When the bouse ad- journed at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with some of the labour problems which have arisen with respect to the trans- Canada pipe line, particularly in northern Ontario. In all fairness, and in spite of the record across the country, I would like to say that a lot of the trouble has not been the fault of the pipe line company-that is to say the parent company-but has been the fault [Mr. Martin (Tlmnins).] of some of the contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. It appears that quite a spider's web of subcontracting is going on up there, and how things can be split so many times with everybody showing a profit is something which I cannot understand or ex- plain to this house. However, it does involve difficulties when one tries to iron out any of these grievances; it is something like being in the middle of a northern swamp in the month of June when the mosquitoes are at their worst, not knowing just which mosquito is doing the biting. Another convenient arrangement, and this of course applies to the period after the base rate was established following the strike in January, when there was an increase of a matter of 20 cents per hour to bring the base rate fairly close to the local rate, is where we get a group of employees, many of whom unfortunately may not be too well educated, being told "the rate here is $1.40 per hour but you don't want to work for as low a rate as that, you should do it on a piecework basis." After a good sales job they are convinced they can make themselves a fortune in a very short time, so they go in on a contract basis but find at the end of three or four weeks that all they are making is about 90 cents an hour instead of $1.40. We have received many other complaints about how part of their pay has been held back for various reasons and now there is apparently a brand new gimmick altogether. In place of hiring local men who by this time are quite familiar with the agreement signed following the strike, they seem to be giving preference to people from outside the province and, indeed, in many cases from outside the country altogether. Such new men are not familiar with the agreement covering the projects and they make certain that these men do not stay on the job long enough to become familiar with it. After a few days' work they are laid off and others hired in their places. As recently as June 4 last I received a communication listing some of the problems I have raised and asking advice as to what could be done about them. Another aspect of the matter which has affected this project right across the country has to do with the rights of way across farm properties. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of nothing so much as a wolf pack after the moose in winter; they pick off the moose one by one. Every known device in the selling field is used to have these men sign agree- ments, often without reading the small print and so on and so forth. The majority of them perhaps feel they could not afford legal advice to interpret the fine print in any event. As a result, they are picked off one by one. It might be wise to give a word of advice to 1184 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 16, 1958 the farmers who will become affected from now on. I might suggest that they might take an example from the moose and that if they, like the moose, keep together they will find they can protect themselves against the wolf pack. This leads me to another aspect, probably the most important aspect of this whole ques- tion; that is the newspaper headlines which follow this project across Canada. I am speak- ing particularly of the scandal associated with municipal and provincial authorities right up to cabinet rank. We have seen some evidence of this in the province of Ontario and I be- lieve there are one or two investigations going on in regard to this matter at the present time. The most significant thing about it is that while there are relatively few men who have abused the privileges and trust placed in them by the electorate, the fact nevertheless remains that the innocent are smeared along with the guilty, and it has now reached the stage where it is quite con- ceivable that the respect and trust in elected officials across Canada will be severely shaken. We have seen what has happened in the province of Ontario and, in the last few days, we have seen that this malignant tree has spread its roots into the province of Quebec- Mr. McPhillips: On a point of order. Mr. Depu±y Speaker: These grievances, I must inform the hon. member, must be of a federal nature. It is out of order to discuss in this house questions which are of a strictly provincial nature and which have no bearing on the affairs of this house. I must therefore ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to matters of a federal nature. Mr. Martin (Timmins): I thank the Speaker for the ruling and I would assure the house that it is my intention to show that this matter has very much to do with the federal government. If you will recall, sir, this matter had its start ini the federal house during a debate which not only rocked the house but rocked it so that it upset and spilled one side on to the other. It has developed right across the country with other implications of pro- vincial and municipal import which situation, I submit, has very much to do with this house. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wish to refer the hon. member to article 234, section (1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 198, which reads in part as follows: When such motion is proposed, it shall be per- missible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament- Actually the redress of grievances which are of a municipal or provincial nature does Pipe Lines-Labour Conditions not fall within the jurisdiction of this parlia- ment and I must therefore ask the hon. member to refrain from discussing them. Mr. Martin (Timmins): I would submit, sir, that this matter has been, is now and can always be under the jurisdiction of this federal house. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Martin (Timmins): Had the proper action been taken by this federal government originally none of these things which I have mentioned would have come to pass or, at least, only in a very limited degree. The best thing of all would have been for the house to have taken the proper action in the first place and operated this transmission line for natural gas as a public utility. The second best thing would have been for this present government to have taken advantage of its opportunity to bring the line under public control. The third best thing would be for this government to take the proper and nec- essary action even at this late date. I would remind hon. members of some words; quoted I believe by Sir Winston Churchill, about sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. This parliament has an inescapable respon- sibility to take action even at this late date to try to restore some of the respect and trust placed in public officials. Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something on this particular grievance. An hon. Member: Why? Mr. Peters: For the very simple reason that I think a lot of Conservatives now sitting on that side do not believe that this trans- mission line should and will eventually be a public utility in this country. It is quite natural that some hon. member should ask why. Unfortunately in my part of the coun- try we have been concerned with some of the problems surrounding the construction of the pipe line in the past few months. The pipe line as it passes through northern Ontario is owned partly by the federal gov- ernment and partly by the provincial govern- ment, and I think that many of the responsi- bilities which should have been accepted in connection wtih its construction have been ignored both by the federal government and by the provincial government of Ontario. Some hon. members may wonder why we wish to discuss this question of the pipe line, but I am certain that many other con- stituencies both in Ontario and in Quebec will soon be facing the type of difficulty I am about to describe. When the federal government passed the pipe lines act they included in it a great many Pipe Lines-Labour Conditions clauses granting privileges to the private com- panies building the lines, including the right of expropriation. They were granted the right to use a farmer's land with or without his agreement, but in my opinion adequate pro- vision was never made for the rights and interests of those who were forced to give up their land. In my own riding of Timiskaming, when the officials of the company applied for easements they went to the farmers and said: this is only an option, we would like to pay you $5; we would also like to buy four acres of your 160-acre farm, having in mind the fact that the land required was only 66 feet wide and the rest was a linear measurement. At the same time they implied that whatever the farmer might decide; the federal govern- ment had already given them the right of expropriation. I have looked into this question of expro- priation to some extent, and I find that the company bas been given that right. I have also found that very little protection bas been given to the farmer who is faced with expro- priation. In this case, although the farmers were inclined to stick together and deal col- lectively with the officials the pipe line com- pany said they could not do this and that they had no intention of dealing with the farmers in this way. They played one farmer off against another. I think that having given the pipe line company the right to apply for expropriation, the right to easements, we should have given the farmers some protec- tion by setting up an impartial board which would evaluate farm land. I should like to call attention to a case which happened a few weeks ago in the riding of Timiskaming where a young couple, a veteran and his wife had applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for money with which to start a tourist camp to be installed on a nice piece of land near a very suitable lake. They had applied to the department and were waiting to hear whether they could get money to start this motel. In the meantime the pipe line com- pany came along with a crew on a Sunday night when people were not normally on that property, cut down the trees, brought in their bulldozers and cleared a stretch 60 feet wide. When the people concerned complained to the officials-the provincial police and other authorities-they were told that there was no redress and that if they wished to start an action for trespass they would have to go to proper legal channels. In this particular case the people had asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to send an evaluator and this official had set a valuation on this property in accordance with the plans which had been prepared [Mr. Peters.] for its development many months before, and his valuation of the land, and of the detrimental effect that this pipe line would have on it, was three times what the owners of the property were offered by the company. I think that when we gave the Trans- Canada Pipe Lines Limited the right to construct this public utility we should have given greater protection to those with whom the company bas to deal. It is all very well to tell a farmer that he can take the com- pany to court, but it is my understanding that in the riding of Timiskaming there is not one lawyer who is willing to conduct such cases against the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. I know for a fact that the attorney general's department is not too willing to press trespass charges against the company, because I have made inquiries and have been informed that they are not willing to do so. The farmers in my part of the country are not sufficiently well off to spend thousands of dollars fighting against something they did not ask for in the first place. The government of Canada has the re- sponsibility for protecting these people. While I agree that we must allow this public utility to expropriate the land required we must also see to it that the people who are affected receive an adequate amount of money in return. It was accepted by some of the farmers at their meetings that they would be quite happy to settle for a basic sum of $50 an acre. They pointed out that if the company had to pay $200 to clear the land, then if the land had already been cleared, surely it would be worth at least that amount; the amount it would have cost, in any case, to clear. I believe the payment of $50 plus $200, making a total payment of $250, is a fair and reasonable price. The contract set out certain things that would be done on behalf of a man who sold property. They undertook to close in the trenches and do clean-up work. They went so far as to state that they would seed the ground, grade it and place grass on it thereby making it very nice for the farmer. I under- stand that bas not been done in most cases in western Ontario where the pipe line passed through. I do not think it will be done in Timiskaming because the people agreed to an over-all sum which would include damages and signed away or waived all rights to court procedure with respect to damage. I believe we have an obligation to look at the matter not only for the present pipeline but in order to set a precedent for the future. There is a popular rumour to the effect that it will not be long until a second and third line are put in. 1188 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 18, 1958 Another problern with which it is, difficult to deal is that of labour. We have no objec- tion to United States companies and it is true that many have a large investment, perhaps $3 million worth of equipment. While it is true they should be allowed to bring in from the United States their overseers, foremen and employees above that rank I do not think it is necessary or desirable to allow them to bring in shovel operators, backline operators and workers of that type. In Ontario we have many competent shovel operators and other workers with many years of experience on construction crews. They would be perfectly capable of doing the work and this would obviate the necessity of bringing in men from other countries. There has been a question raised as to whether this is a matter of federal concern. Certainly the question of bringing in United States workers to work on Canadian pipe lines comes under federal jurisdiction. We are faced with an odd situation when we cannot find out from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration how many United States workers were employed on a particular spread. In the contract governing the employ- ment of workers for the section of the pipe line that is operated by the crown corporation all United States workers must be hired only with the consent of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) but the bulk of the people who have been brought in to work on the pipe line are from the United States. I must admit that we in Timiskaming refer to them as "you-afl's". I suppose that is because many of them come from Texas and speak with a southern drawl: "How are you all?" These people do not enter Canada under a work permit. They come as landed immigrants and have no citizenship papers. They can move freely from place to place and stay as long as they wish. When a job is finished they can return to the United States to pursue their occupation elsewhere. It is interesting to note how those charged with the responsibility of hiring employees to work on the pipe line avoid the use of the unemployment insurance offices. I believe that people seeking employment on construction jobs should not be required to line up in front of a construction shack at six o'clock in the morning while the boss comes out, strolls up and down, and says, "You and you and you work today; the rest of you be back here at six o'clock tomorrow morning." I can remem- ber occasions like that when I went to work in the mines of northern Ontario at the end of the thirties and the beginning of the forties. Management thought it was wonder- ful to have 300 men lined up at the gate seeking to fill two vacancies. I thought those days had passed for all time. Pipe Lines-LaboÙr Conditions One P the failings of the unemployment insurance commission is that it cannot guar- antee that a man sent to a job as a shovel operator, for instance, is fully qualified in his occupation. We have no system in Canada under which we can determine who is and who is not qualified for a particular job. It frequently happens that a man sent to a job who has five or six years experience in his occupation is told by management at the end of half an hour that he is not qualified to do the work or has insufficient experience and someone is brought in to replace him who might have been employed by the company on a previous occasion, perhaps in western Canada. The unions are unable to do much in this regard because they are not in close contact with the situation. In most cases they have hiring clauses in their contracts but they are not in a position to say that a man is qualified for a particular assignrment and when a company says he is not qualified that is usually the end of the matter. It has been said there are not sufficient trained welders in Canada, and that this accounts for their working double shifts. If we have not a sufficient number of qualified welders in Canada I say it is a disgrace to the people of this country that we should not be capable of suitably training people to do this type of work. I would like to discuss the common labourer for a moment. Surely no one would contend we have an insufficient number of these men or that they are required to work double shifts. Many of these men who earn $1.25 an hour are working 70 or more hours each week. In view of the serious unemployment situation that exists in northern Ontario we should be able to enforce a 40-hour week for common labourers and thus employ two people on a job where we are now employing only one. This would not mean delaying the pipe-line contractors. Indeed this would be undesirable as they have a short season and must accomplish as much as possible during good weather. However, a swing shift system would offer employment to many people who are seeking it and each common labourer could do a reasonable amount of work and we could perhaps employ two or three men where we are now employing only one. The matter of working on Sunday has become a great problem deserving the atten- tion of the federal government. We have piously enacted the Lord's Day Act which sets out that no work should be done on Sunday if the operation is not continuous but we do not see fit to enforce the provisions of this legislation. I am pleased to state, however, that the townspeople in my area have taken matters into their own hands. They went out Pipe Lines-Labour Conditions on Sundays when they did not have very much to do themselves and made such a fuss about it with the contractors that the con- tractors have now shut down except for maintenance work on Sundays. These are questions we as Canadians are going to have to face. If transmission lines are to be built across Canada then we should have regulations to protect the Canadian people. My colleague, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) mentioned the fact that this line would have been more satis- factorily handled if it had been entirely done through a crown corporation. I believe this truth will be borne out in time based on the success we had in putting through the line in the northern Ontario section which is now owned jointly by the federal and pro- vincial governments. The work progressed very rapidly and the Department of Defence Production has done an exceptionally good job in this field. The problem of stock distribution could have been prevented if we had seen fit to make the entire pipe line a public utility. I would urge the federal government to give full consideration at least to this matter of controlling the price, setting up the board of transport commissioners to control the price of gas coming through northern On- tario. As everybody knows, northern Ontario has now progressed past the original state of development where it depended on and could live off its natural resources. We are now sorely in need of secondary industries. While in the town of Timmins a unit of gas is quoted at $2.40, yet in the city of Cornwall, which will be another 500 miles along the line, that same unit of gas is being quoted at $1.40. The board of trans- port commissioners could do a great service to the people of northern Ontario by making gas as readily and as cheaply available as possible to encourage the introduction of new industries. I urge that some control be exercised over pipe lines in general and the trans Canada pipe line in particular, and that before we grant a licence to another pipe-line company to build a line across Canada we insist on some protection for the workers and the farmers who will be directly affected by the line. I would point out that this is not a radical change for the Conservative govern- ment because only a year or so ago while in opposition the members of the Conserv- ative party were pleased to support a differ- ent policy on natural gas. I would strongly urge that they consider now the implementa- tion of that policy. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair. [Mr. Peters.] The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consider- ation: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 157. Departmental administration including annual contribution of $200 to the conference of commis- sioners on uniformity of legislation In Canada, $592,290. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE 391. Departmental administration, $739,086. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 414. Departmental administration, $2,144,060. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, pro- vided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects- 329. Newfoundland, $3,461,474. The Deputy Chairman: This item will be found on page 67 of the book of estimates, the details on page 464 in the same book. Shall vote No. 329 carry? Mr. Carter: Last Friday while we were on this estimate I raised the question of speci- fications in relation to the fact that certain products may be mentioned by name and would therefore preclude other products from being used even though they may serve the purpose equally well. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to look at the specifications regarding the two buildings now being constructed in St. John's? We are anxious to use as much of our local products in these buildings as we possibly can. We can supply excellent doors and interior finishes, and I wondered whether the minister would table or read into the record that sec- tion of the specifications which actually call for certain specific materials to be used. Per- haps the minister can do that at some later date; I know he cannot do it at once. If he would do that I would personally like to see how those specificatons are worded because, even though there may be an escape clause which would permit other products to be used, if one product is specifically mentioned it can be interpreted by the contractor as being the first choice, and any other substitu- tions would perhaps be regarded as to be used only if the former were not available. This is a very important point as far as Newfoundland is concerned, and I do hope the minister will be able to give us all the information possible on this point. Before I sit down I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and through him to his col- leagues in the government-because this will 1188 HOUSE OF COMMONS concerfi the cabinet as a whole-a situation which has developed in Newfoundland due to the difference in policies ini regard to public buildings before and since Newfound- land joined confederation. Before Newfound- land became a province o! Canada the con- struction of public buildings was the responsibility of the provincial government, and they had a very simple policy which was based maiply on the size o! the community, and also on the fact that in Newfoundland we had a special situation with respect to post offices and telegraph offices. These two services were comnbined into a single service prior to Newfoundland becoming a province o! Canada and as it was not suitable for those services to be per!ormed in private homes the provincial government built a public building in the community for those services. Mr. Browne (St. John's West). That was flot so everywhere. Mr. Carter: My hon. friend can tell his story after I have finished; I amn going to tell mine. After Newfoundland became a province o! Canada, the maintenance and the construction of public buildings became the responsibility o! the federal government. The federal government has a different policy altogether. For example, post offices are built only in communities where the revenue from the sale o! starnps is around $10,000. You have to have a very large fishing coin- munity to have starnp sales o! that magnitude. The situation which I wish to bring to the minister's attention is this. In a community o! about 200 or 300 families before confedera- tion that community would have a public building of its own, a small public building for the post office department and for the telegrapli office. Mr. Browne : Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister consider requesting that it be printed I Hansard in the usual way? Mr. Speaker: May I ask the house whether it gives leave to having the documents just tabled by the Prime Minister printed as part of Hansard this day? Is it agreed? Same hon. Members: Agreed. [For text of correspondence above referred to, see appendix "A", pages 1283-84.] EXTERNAL AFFAIRS LEBANON-STATEMENT AS TO STEPS TAKEN BY UNITED NATIONS Han. Sidney E. Smith (Secrefary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to give a statement to the house. I desire to inform the house of the steps which the United Nations is taking in connection with the crisis in Leba- non, and the role which Canada is once again being called upon ta play. The security council resolution of June Il under which the United Nations group in Lebanon is functioning grew out of the complaint submitted by Lebanon regarding interference in its affairs by the United Arab Republic. The operative part of the resolu- tion-passed, as hon. members of the house I arn sure know, with the full concurrence of 10 of the 1l1 members of the counicil, including Canada, with only the U.S.S.R. abstaining-meets the essential requirements of a constructive United Nations intervention. It cails for the urgent dispatch of an observa- tion group to proceed to Lebanon-and I quote from the resolution that was adopted by the security council: .. so as to ensure that there is no Illegal. Infiltra- tion of personnel or supply of armns or other materiel across the Lebanese border; -and it authorizes the secretary general to take the necessary steps to that end. Because of the need for haste the secretary general turned in the first instance ta the United Nations truce supervision organization in Palestine-UNTSO-to form the nucleus of the substantial military observer corps that ,he will require ta assist the political team of three which will constitute the observation group proper. This team consists of three highly qualified and experienced men selected 1204 HOUSE OF COMMONS Lebanon-United Nations Intervention by the secretary general; a Norwegian, an the action which the government has taken SQ Ecuadorian, and an Indian. The Norwegian speedily and I think effectively to ensure -General Bull, commander of the Norwegian Canadian participation in this United Na- air force-arrived in Beirut on June 15, tions peace-preserving effort. I would also preceded a day or two earlier by 15 express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the military observers from the UNTSO staff, situation should deteriorate in Lebanon to including one Canadian, Major G. D. Mitchell. the point where the legitimate government All these UNTSO officers are assigned on there might be overthrown as a resuit of a temporary basis only, but I need hardly intervention from outside, any further steps say that the secondment of a Canadian that might have to be taken would he taken officer from the TSO to this urgent and not by any individual government but under highly important task of getting the UN the auspices of the United Nations. operation under way was arranged with the Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West): Mr. full approval of our Department of National Speaker, the members of this group listened Defence. with great interest to what the Secretary of General Bull had not been on the ground State for External Affairs bas just read, and for more than a few hours when it became are pleased to note that he is utilizing the apparent to him that the modest sized machinery for the maintenance of peace observer corps which had at first been en- established in great part through the efforts visaged would be entirely inadequate for of the former secretary of state for external the task in hand, having regard to the com- affairs. plexity of the situation and the mountainous nature of the frontier areas. He promptly LLater:] reported to the secretary general that a min- imum of 100 military observers would be SUMMIT CONFERENcE-REQUEST FOR REAcTION essential to the success of the operation. The TO LETTER iROM PREMIER KHRU5HCHEV secretary general thereupon requested Can- On the orders of the day: ada and 13 other countries to supply addi- tional observers from their regular armed S r, I xvisb to adress q est tth forces on a basis of the utmost urgency. Of pime Inist As a i esteo f t- the other countries so approached Finland, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Chile and Den- ne political observer, would the Prime Min- mark have accepted, and several others are ster give the government's reaction to momentarilyPremier Khrushchev's latest letter to Presdent mumetarly epeced t dosu.Eisenhower, asking for a clarification of the I need hardly tell the house that the west's attitude toward a summit conference? Canadian government too has responded speedily to the secretary general's appeal. Righ± Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Ten Canadian officers have already been Minister): I do not think any clarification is chosen for this assignment, and they should necessary regarding the attitude of the free be on their way to Lebanon within 48 hours. world toward a summit conference. In so far The ultimate scope of the United Nations as the letter from Premier Khrushchev to the operations in Lebanon is not yet clear, and President is concerned, all I bave seen regard- the secretary general himself is leaving for ing that would indicate an attitude somewhat Beirut tonight to examine the situation on akin to a desire to hold up the possibility of the spot. convening a summit conference. I would think The task with which he and the observa- that the attitude of Canada, as of the western tion group have been entrusted by the wnrld, N an expression of the hope that a security council is a delicate and difficult summit conference can and will be achieved ... after the necessary reliminaries have taken one. The success or failure of this initiative pa has, of course, immediate significance for Lebanon's security and possibly for peace in lacei ll br at the ievement off the area as a whole. But it could have far wider implications; it represents a further resuits rather than expectation alone. test, perhaps a crucial one, of the United Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Nations ability to deal rapidly and effectively Opposition): I have a supplementary question, with international disputes of a kind likely Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister to lead to open conflict. whether it is contemplated in the discussions Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the which are now going on that Canada should Oppoitin): r. peakr, am urethetake part in this proposed summit conference? Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will have heard with great interest Mr. Diefenbaker: I do not think there is the statement of my hon. friend, and I can anything I can add to what bas already been assure him of the full support of our party in said in that regard. [Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac)x.p JUNE 17, 1958 REPORTED INTRODUCTION Or CONFIDENTIAL LETTER BEFORE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE On the orders of the day: Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur): I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with an answer he gave me on May 21 with regard to the appearance of a confidential letter from the Prime Minister of Canada in the hands of the United States authorities. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs determined from Senator Morris how he obtained the letter? If not, has any check been made on the progress of the letter before it started into external affairs chan- nels? Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I have been informed that the United States senator to whom reference has been made has refused to dis- close how he got that letter. Every check has been made as to the fate of that letter, but, I have nothing further to give to the house than I had when I answered the ques- tion approximately two weeks ago. Mr. McIlraith: A supplementary question. Is that the reason the senator was refused the right to speak on the C.B.C.? Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, that astonishes me. Mr. Fisher: A further supplementary ques- tion. I should like to ask for an elaboration of the minister's answer. Does it mean that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can assure us that as far as it is known the letter did not disappear from the office of the Prime Minister? Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac): I cannot speak for the office of the prime minister of that day. INDUSTRY STEEL-REPORTED STATEMENT BY UNION DIRECTOR On the orders of the day: Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister, to whom I sent notice this morning. Is the Prime Minister in a position to comment on the press report that William Mahoney, national director of the national steelworkers of America, has asked for a meeting with the government to discuss steel prices and policies in Canada, with special ref- erence to the charge that prices are adminis- tered or arranged in such a way that they are geared to United States prices? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I know nothing re- garding this matter except the press report; Inquiries of the Ministry and until a communication is received in the usual way no consideration can be given to the matter by the government. AGRICULTURE SOYBEANS-STATEMENT ON APPLICATION OF PRICE STABILIZATION On the orders of the day: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex East asked this ques- tion, as found at page 1159 of Hansard: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if -his attention has been directed to a statement made to the soybean growers by the chairman of the agricultural prices stabilization board as to the way in which the floor price for soybeans is intended to operate? If the minister bas not seen that statement, would he be prepared to look at It and advise the house as to whether or not that is a correct statement of the application of this floor price policy? The so-called statement actually is a letter which was written by the chairman of the board to Mr. Standing of the Ontario soy- bean growers marketing board, and the letter conveys correctly our ideas, on the basis of information we have received so far from the soybean growers marketing board, as to how support will have to operate. In order that other hon. members may know what we are talking about perhaps I should read a few paragraphs from the letter which outlines the situation. The letter states in part: I believe you understand that this stabilization assistance is to be in the form of a deficiency pay- ment whereby this board will make up the difference between the average return to all growers and the prescribed price. We believe your board- That is the soybean marketing board. -regulates the price of all the product for the growers and it is understood that you will be keeping a record of each producer's deliveries and the return per bushel which he receives . . . we will need to be able to determine the average sale price per bushel for all grades and then the differ- ence between this average price received by all growers and the stabilization price of $2.10 per bushel will be paid to each eligible grower. This is the way it will operate. We will say that the average price that is received for soybeans is $2 a bushel. That will mean there will be a deficiency payment of 10 cents per bushel which we will make up. But the beans from each individual grower will have been sold at different prices by their own board. Some of that difference will be due to the time at which they are sold. Some farmers will perhaps be holding their beans for four months before they are sold; others will sell them practically out of the field. Second, the difference would be due to variations in grade. HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry In any event, the only thing we can do is make up the average difference. Whatever that sum is-we will say it is 10 cents in this case-it will be paid to each grower which will mean, of course, that each grower will not receive the same price for his beans. The only way in which they can receive the same price for their beans is if the soybean growers marketing board and the growers themselves are willing to pool their returns, as is done by the wheat growers of western Canada under the Canadian wheat board. If they are willing to pool their returns there is, of course, no difficulty in connection with the matter. These people can then receive the same return. If they are not willing to pool their returns, which is their own decision, there is no way in which the returns can be made exactly the same to each of them. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): I thank the minister for the quick way in which he dealt with my question of yesterday. I should like to ask him if he is aware that as a result of the communication written by the chairman of the agricultural prices stabilization board there is great concern on the part of the soy- bean growers. They feel that, as a result of this declaration as to how the price policy should operate, the averaging of prices be- tween those farmers who receive less than $2.10, the declared price, and those who receive a higher price will bring about the result that though deficiency payments will have been paid, the farmers who will have received less than $2.10 will not, in fact, receive a floor price of $2.10 at all. In consequence of that result, is the min- ister aware that farmers are now asking for a higher floor price which I believe, at their meeting in Chatham, they fixed at $2.57? Mr. Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that concern has been expressed. So far it has not been expressed to me. I am not aware that they are asking for a higher floor price, but I would not be surprised if they were because everybody asks for higher floor prices on all other commodities; that is only human nature. So far as the other remarks the hon. gentle- man has made, I answered them in what I said. The remedy for this complaint which he mentions is in the hands of the growers them- selves, and in the hands of their board. If the growers and the board are willing to pool their returns, which so far they have not expressed any willingness to do, just the same as the prairie grain growers pool their returns, then they will all receive at least $2.10 a bushel. We cannot of course, as a government, force them to pool their returns; that is their individual choice. [Mr. Harkness.] Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): I wonder if the minister might answer a supplementary question. Has the government considered pay- ing a floor price to the producer directly in order that the producers may obtain the same price? If he is suggesting that this type of thing is the same as the Canadian wheat board, is the government prepared to estab- lish a government board like the Canadian wheat board in order to accomplish equity amongst the producers? Mr. Harkness: So far the growers have not asked for a government board, and I under- stand they do not want a government board. They want their own board to handle this crop. We, of course, pay the deficiency pay- ments direct to the farmers. If there is any complaint over the fact that each farmer is not going to receive the same price for his soybeans, the remedy is in their own hands. All they have to do is agree to pool their returns. Mr. Argue: Will the minister explain why the board or the government do not establish a continuing floor price and offer it to the producers if they wish to deliver their prod- ucts to the board? Mr. Harkness: Apparently the hon. gentle- man does not understand that the Ontario soybean growers marketing board, under the Ontario marketing legislation, has been given the sole authority to market these soybeans; that is part of the Ontario law. INQUIRY AS TO DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND FLOOR PRICES On the orders of the day: Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister decided to establish any floor prices or to make any deficiency payments in respect to fruits and vegetables which have not yet been announced? I should also like to hear the min- ister's comments on strawberries, peaches and cherries. Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agricul- ±ure): Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. mem- ber would like me to make a long speech, but I can assure you I am not going to trans- gress the rules by doing so. The matter of establishing support prices for commodities which are not already supported will, of course, be decided when an application has been made by the producers of any of these commodities for assistance of this kind. I am therefore not in a position to say what further commodities will be put under price stabilization. JUNE 17, 1958 Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the wheat growers of Ontario have asked for a floor price on wheat, and if that is the case when will the minister be in a position to make an announcement? Mr. Harkness: If the hon. member will cast his mind back to a few months ago when we were discussing the matter here, he will re- member that there is a mandatory floor price provided as far as wheat, oats and barley are concerned. Therefore it is not a matter of whether or not these supports are in ef- fect; they are there, and they exist in the legislation. Mr. Hazen Argue (Assinibaia): Do I take it from the minister's answer that this is the only floor which will be provided for the Ontario wheat producers, and if sa does he think it is at a satisfactory level? Mr. Harkness: The hon. member is trying ta turn me into a prophet now, and that is a role on which I am not prepared to embark at the moment. SHIPPING GROUNDING OF C.G.S. "BAFFIN"-STATEMENT ON RESUMPTION OF INVESTIGATION On the orders of the day: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trans- port): In reply ta a question by the hon. member for Port Arthur I advised the bouse on May 23 that because of the illness of Judge Pottier the final sittings of the court of investigation into the grounding of the C.G.S. Baffin had to be postponed, but that it was expected the commissioner would be able to call the court together again within two or three weeks. I regret that since that time the department bas learned that Judge Pottier's doctor will not permit him to resume work until the autumn, and in these circumstances the com- pletion of the inquiry will be furtber post- poned for some months. GRAIN WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE On the orders of the day: Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): I should like to direct a question ta the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1956-57 will be referred te the agriculture committee? Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The hon. member did not give me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker, and he has taken me by surprise. I thought Inquiries of the Ministry he was going to ask me about the Manitoba election and the success of Mr. Duff Roblin and the Conservative party. With regard to the report lie has mentioned, perhaps the committee will make the necessary request. Mr. Argue: I wonder whether the report might be referred to the committee because of the universal disappointment in the final payment for wheat for that crop year. With reference to the Manitoba election, I wonder whether this helps to account for the fact that the Conservative party dropped from getting all the seats on March 31 to a minority government yesterday? Mr. Fleming (Eglinton): Very feeble. PROGRESS OF INQUIRY INTO ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS On the orders of the day: Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has lie any information te impart to the house with reference to the progress of the investigation into the box car situation? Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The investigation with regard to the box car situation is going ahead very well. A series of public meetings are being held in Saskatchewan and Alberta during the course of this month. When they are con- cluded I think the report will be prepared and submitted to the department very shortly thereafter. Mr. Chevrier: Has the minister any idea as te the date of that event? Mr. Churchill: No, I cannot set an exact date for that event. TRADE AUTOMOBILES-ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY U.S. IN CANADIAN EXPORTS TO CHINA On the orders of the day: Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the question which I put to him on June 2 with regard to the investigation promised by the government in connection with the alleged attempt on the part of a Canadian automobile company to sell automobiles ta China, an act that was arrested as the result of action taken by the parent body in the United States pursuant to the laws of that country? Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I hope that an answer ta the hon. member's question will be ready before too long. HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, that is practically word for word the reply the minister gave me on June 2. Mr. Fulton: So is your question. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Could the minister not at least vary his reply by using different words? Mr. Churchill: It just shows, Mr. Speaker, how accurate I am in answering these ques- tions which are repetitive in nature. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INQUIRY AS TO PORTRAIT ON FORTHCOMING STAMP ISSUE • On the orders of the day: Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would the Postmaster General comment on reports that the model portrayed on a forthcoming postage stamp issue is not a qualified nurse? Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Un- fortunately the choice of these models is not the responsibility of the Postmaster General but that of the artist who is retained by the department to design the stamp. When the artist was given the commission to design this particular stamp he was referred by the department to the officials of the Canadian Nurses' Association for material, and that association in turn referred the artist, Mr. Trottier, to the illustration of a nurse used by the Department of National Health and Welfare, which had been developed with the full co-operation of the nurses association. The artist decided that this was a satisfactory model and arranged to take his own pictures of her, which formed the basis for the illustration on the stamp. I may say that the uniform which was used while these photographs were taken was provided by the Canadian 'Nurses' Associa- tion. The only thing I might add, Mr. Speaker, is that I am quite sure the Canadian Nurses' Association have many members who are equally as attractive as the girl portrayed on this stamp. HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORIZE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTICIPATING PROvINCES, ETC. The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 4, consideration in committee of the followirig resolution-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Sevi- gny in the chair: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Ser- vices Act to authorize contributions being made as [Mr. Churchill.] of the first day of July, 1958, to a participating prov- ince which has a plan in operation; and to make certain changes in connection with the administra- tion of the act. Mr. McMillan: Mr. Chairman, a week ago, at about two minutes before six o'clock, I began to make some comments on this sub- ject. Today I should like to continue my remarks with regard to the proposed amend- ments to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnos- tic Services Act. I said at that time that I was aware from my own experience of the need for some type of hospital insurance; that I had attended the last dominion-provincial conference on this subject, and had been impressed by the fact that most of the spokesmen for the provinces had expressed the need for hospital insurance in their particular provinces. They had also expressed the need for federal aid. The cost per patient day has been going up steadily all across Canada. In Ontario, for example, the cost in 1941 was $3.47, while in 1956 it was $14.46; and in no intervening year bas there been a decrease in these costs. I have here a copy of the daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics of May 30 from which I will read a few extracts. It cost nearly half a billion dollars to run the hos- pitals of Canada in 1956. The total expendi- tures for hospitals of all types rose by more than 11 per cent to the record figure of $467,500,000, representing an average per capita cost of about $29. Public hospitals, in- cluding federal, private, mental and tuber- cular hospitals, reported expenditures of $347 million. It cost $3,583 to maintain the average public hospital bed in operation for the year, as against $3,379 a year before. The average cost per patient day in 1956 was $13 as com- pared with $12.26 in 1955, while in 1952 the daily cost was $2.47. Costs have varied according to the size and nature of the hospital concerned. The figures rive the breakdown of costs under salaries and wages, drugs and medical sup- plies, food and so on. One thing struck me particularly, the fact that in Canada we are giving less voluntary help to our hospitals. According to the dominion bureau of statistics this decreasing dependence on voluntary public support is illustrated by the fact that donations from the public for current opera- tions provide only $16.10 of every $1,000 of general hospital revenue, as compared with $17.43 two years previously. The highest figure for public donations was $30.32 per $1,000 of revenue in Quebec, and the lowest was $1.50 in Alberta. With this background of rising hospital costs in mind, and taking into consideration the mental stress and financial worries attendant upon prolonged illnesses, our former prime minister decided to make avail- able to the provinces the best available hos- pital and diagnostic care. The federal gov- ernment would assume approximately half the cost while the provinces would assume the other half, the only stipulation being that these services should be available to every person resident within a province. In my opinion that was one of the greatest human- itarian acts ever placed on the statute books of Canada. This act was piloted through the House of Commons by the former minister of national health and welfare, now the hon. member for Essex East, who received a well deserved and merited compliment the other day from the hon. member for Durham when he referred to the great part played by the hon. member for Essex East in putting this legislation on our statute books. Provision was made that this act should come into operation as soon as six provinces had signed the agreement and could qualify under the act. I can well remember the criticisms that were voiced in this house. I well remember the statements made by the former hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles, who maintained that this act should go into operation immediately and should apply to those provinces that had hospital plans already in force. I well re- member certain hon. members now to your right maintaining at that time that this act should apply to depreciation and adminis- trative costs, and that it should provide for payment of half the costs for mental and tubercular patients in those institutions. I well remember the fine argument put forward by my friend the late hon. member for Lanark, Dr. Blair. He insisted that there should be no differentiation between sickness in a general hospital and sickness in a mental or tuberculosis hospital. In fact hon. members on the other side of the house, and particularly the present Minister of Finance, criticized the exclusions contained in section 2 (e) of the bill. The Minister of Finance, the then private hon. member for Eglinton, felt so keenly about it that he divided the house on third reading of the bill. As I recall it the present Minister of National Health and Welfare and many hon. members who now sit on your right voted with him. I refer to page 3381 of Hansard of April 10, 1957, where an amendment moved by the present Minister of Finance is recorded in these words: That Bill 320 be not now read the third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the com- mittee of the whole for the purpose of reconsider- ing the provisions to exclude tuberculosis hospitals Hospital Insurance Act and sanatoria and hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill in clause 2 (e) thereof. He Went on to state: My purpose is to ask the house to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole in order that this same clause which contains this unjustifiably narrow definition of the word "hospital" may be reconsidered. I put before the house the ground that there can be no justification in good sense or in principle or in humanity or in the existing facts of life as applied to the financial difficulties of the provinces and municipalities of this country, for this government to try to drive a wedge between general hospitals on the one hand and tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria and hospitals and institu- tions for the mentally il on the other hand. It Is only by changing the definition that the govern- ment proposes in clause 2 (e) that this unworthy distinction can be eliminated. The hon. member at that time argued that there could be no justification whatever for the exclusion of those hospitals. I wish to refer briefly to the remarks made by the present Prime Minister with regard to this amendment proposed by the present Minister of Finance. On April 10, 1957, as recorded at page 3386 of Hansard, the Prime Minister, the then private hon. member for Prince Albert, said: The amendment moved by the hon. member would refer the bill to the committee of the whole for the purpose of considering this clause and thereby giving an opportunity, even at this late hour, of including within the ambit of the legislation san- atoria, tuberculosis hospitals and institutions and hospitals for the mentally ill. I cannot understand this omission. It is interesting to note that the right hon. gentleman who now sits in this house as Prime Minister pursued this matter in the election campaign that year. The Winnipeg Tribune of May 14, 1957, reports him as having said: The Conservatives, he said, would repair a "serious omission" in the federal health plan which does not include tubercular and mental institutions. The Toronto Globe and Mail of May 28, 1957, reports the hon. gentleman as having said in Saskatoon: Mr. Diefenbaker said the Conservative party still believes that hospital insurance should cover patients in mental and tuberculosis institutions. I consider that in these statements, if correct-and I have no reason to accuse either the Globe and Mail or the Winnipeg Tribune of not being correct-we have a solemn promise to the people of Canada. I am cer- tainly surprised in view of this fact that section 2 (e) is not being amended by the government at this time to widen the defini- tion in order to cover mental and tuberculosis hospitals. I was interested in seeing what some of the provinces thought about the bill. The 1209JUNE 17, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act Vancouver Province of March 8, 1958, carried the following report: Premier Bennett made his first direct criticism of the national Conservative government. "We are a little alarmed." he told the house "at the way the present government is holding hands with Ontario and Quebec; it is a little too much for the best interests of British Columbia." Earlier he said: I am terribly disappointed in the Diefenbaker gov- ernment. I had hoped that it would have had vision. Actually it has dealt with British Columbia nore severely than the Liberal government did. In the 10 months since this government was elected it has been in the business of politics rather than that of government. To digress a little, I certainly believe that, because in my own riding unemployment is increasing in spite of the promises that we would have no unemployment by the middle of the summer. Mr. Monteith (Perth): What has that to do with hospital insurance? Mr. McMillan: I have had wires from home today saying that unemployment is going up. Mr. Monteiih (Perih): What has that to do with hospital insurance? Mr. McMillan: It bas something to do with hospital insurance. When I was home a man came to see me who, because he was unem- ployed, could not meet his payments and so on. He was actually sick, so sick that be had to go to hospital. Mr. Cardiff: Why did you not do something for him? Mr. McMillan: I will tell you that worry- ing about unemployment does produce ulcers, will make ulcers worse and cause them to bleed, and so on. I refer to stomach ulcers, and that is true. It is easy enough to laugh about unemployment. Hon. members across the way do laugh about unemployment, but I can tell them that in Welland the numbers are going up every week instead of going down. Mr. Montei±h (Perth): We are not laughing about unemployment. Mr. McMillan: The minister of health of British Columbia said this: The Tories have stated mental care and tuber- culosis care can't be accepted as shareable hospital insurance costs without impairment of payments made provinces under other arrangements. The best compliment this government is paying to the former government is contained in the proposed amendments to this act. One bas to do with getting the scheme started; otherwise the scheme could not get started. The other minor amendment has to do with providing some meals and restricting the use [Mr. MeMillan.] of drugs. I would like the minister to tell us what Premier Bennett bas in mind. I would like to know whether British Columbia was offered a deal different from that signed by Ontario. I know the minister said the other day that Newfoundland had signed an agree- ment. I would like him to tell us whether there was any difference in detail in the agreement signed by Ontario and the agree- ment signed by the province of Newfoundland. Mr. Montei±h (Perth): They are all within the terms of the act. Mr. McMillan: I am asking whether there was any difference in detail. I would like to know why the other provinces have not signed. It seems to me that there must be some difference or British Columbia would have signed. It looks to me as though this government got the province of Ontario to sign and is offering this amendment as bait to the other provinces to come in so as not to embarrass the province of Ontario on January 1, 1959, if six provinces have not come into the scheme by that time. I really think this government is forced to bring in this amendment as the result of its own failure to pursue the parliamentary objective of having a nation-wide hospital insurance plan under way as soon as possible. I think the act itself is excellent; I believe the formula worked out by the previous government was an ingenious one. It tends to prevent any interference on the part of the Department of National Health and Welfare in things that come purely within provincial jurisdiction. The act itself is gene- rous and it will readily be taken up by the people. I think, however, this scheme would have been very difficult of attainment without the national health program that we had in force under the former minister for a period of 10 years or more. We spent some- thing like $250 million under that program. We helped to provide beds in new hospitals and hospital extensions. We spent much money in the control of such diseases as tuberculosis, venereal disease and cancer. We also spent much money in training large numbers of personnel. One very good example of the action taken by the former minister was the help given to the provinces to get their poliomyelitis immunization programs under way. As a result the incidence of polio bas dropped. I have not seen the recent figures, but I know it has come down very markedly. The do- minion government spent $3 million on that program. There bas been a great saving to the people, not only in hospital beds because those people are not in the hospitals for prolonged periods, but because many children are not going to be handicapped for life. One outstanding feature of the bill, of course, is the fact that there is no time limit on hospitalization. I know from personal experience that many people who suffer mul- tiple fractures and terminal illnesses are often in hospital much longer than they could be and still be covered by the insurance schemes at present in vogue. Hospitals also should be able to budget and not have large deficits. The municipalities should benefit when this scheme is in operation. If the provinces play fair with the municipalities, the municipalities will not have to put up their share for indigent people going to hospital. We have old age pensioners, old age assistance cases and various other civil pensioners who go to hospitals; and if the provinces assume their share then the municipalities will be relieved financially. Dr. Malcolm G. Taylor of the University of Toronto was commissioned by the Canadian tax foundation to submit his findings con- cerning the probable cost of hospital and medical care in Canada, and by a series of calculations he came up with a figure showing that our national hospital insurance scheme would cost something like $634 million by 1960. Dr. Taylor thinks we should be able to do this and I certainly think we should, since this figure is just a little over half our liquor bill in Canada. Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is for 10 provinces. Mr. McMillan: Yes, 10 provinces. He esti- mated that by 1960 the combined cost in Canada of medical and hospital care would be 2.6 per cent of our national income, where- as today it is 2 per cent. One thing I like about this scheme is the fact that people will be able to go to hospital as of right and not be classified as indigents. We have a highly educated public. They are all aware of the benefits of good health care, and they look upon the rising standards of medical care as concomitants of a rising stand- ard of living. Therefore, but for the hospital scheme we have put on the statute books, I think we would have had increased hospital and medical care. I know the minister is very anxious to answer some of these questions. I have tabulated certain questions which I should like to hear him answer before we adopt the resolution. First I should like him to tell us why more provinces have not signed agreements. There have only been two and there certainly should have been six by this time. I think we would have had six if the minister had pursued the matter more vigorously. Second, what is the reason for British Columbia's attitude? I have heard from other sources that British Columbia does Hospital Insurance Act not look on the plan very favourably. Third, were all provinces offered the same agree- ment? In spite of what the minister said in the house the other day I have heard that there is some difference between the agreements signed by Ontario and Newfound- land. I have one last question, and I am sure the minister can answer it very easily. Why do the minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the minister's other colleagues take such a restricted view of section 2 (e) of the act, when they all voted to include hospitalization in mental and tubercular institutions on April 10, 1957? Mr. Martin (Timmins): Mr. Chairman, we have just heard some very interesting re- marks from the hon. member for Welland who speaks, I understand, as a medical prac- titioner. His views on this subject are most interesting. I will have to speak as a patient of various medical practitioners throughout the country and try to give the viewpoint of the patient with regard to this matter. I believe there are many phases of the hospital insurance plan that are badly in need of explanation at the present time. I quite realize that some of the problems I may raise are not caused wholly by the federal government, but I believe the federal government has a duty and responsibility to the people, particularly of the province of Ontario, to try to correct some of the wrong impressions that have been created in the minds of the people and to clear up some of the confusion and misinformation under which the people of Ontario are labouring at the present time. The first point I should like to refer to, and in my opinion it is a serious fault in the plan, bas to do with the fact that there is no coverage for old age pensioners. Through- out the country there are examples of hos- pital insurance plans that have been in effect for quite a number of years and have worked very satisfactorily, and which do not lack such a provision. This is not a new field we are plowing. Examples, figures, information and data are all available. I think such a provision definitely should be included in this plan; and as long as amendments are being made to the scheme we should cer- tainly include the major amendments needed to make the plan as good as it possibly can be made. There is another aspect with regard to old age pensions which I believe will cause a lot of confusion. As I understand the situa- tion, people who are drawing old age as- sistance will be covered by the plan made effective by the agreement between the 1211JUNE 17, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act province of Ontario and the federal govern- ment so far as their hospital costs are con- cerned. However, when they pass from the 65 to 70 old age assistance group, during which time they receive a pension with a means test, to the group 70 and over who automatically receive an old age pension with no means test, I understand they will have to obtain a certificate proving they are in- digent or in very needy circumstances or they will automatically lose their hospital plan benefits. I think that is a point that needs very close scrutiny. If the situation is as it appears to be from the information I have received so far, it is certainly something ,hat should be corrected. The information I have referred to is con- tained in the literature being published con- cerning the plan at the present time. On page 8 of the booklet I have here which has to do with questions and answers about hospital insurance in Ontario there is a reference to social assistance persons. There is a further reference to page 50, where one finds a des- cription of the various people who will be eligible. One sees that persons who qualify under the Old Age Assistance Act are eligible, and then it says that persons who come under the Old Age Security Act and are approved by the department of public welfare are eligible to receive medical welfare services. Because of that information and subsequent telephone calls and inquiries I have made I have gained the impression that a person receiving old age assistance, with respect to whom the means test is automatically abol- ished at age 70, will have to apply for a certificate of financial distress, shall we say, or be will automatically lose his hospital benefits under the plan. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Can my hon. friend be more precise? That is a very im- portant statement to make. Perhaps the minister might comment on it. Mr. Martin (Timmins): I am hoping that the minister will comment and clarify the point if he has the information available because, as I understand the situation from the information I have obtained, the only way old age pensioners, those 70 and over, can obtain these benefits is by obtaining a certificate to the effect that they are in needy circumstances. This would mean that they would automatically lose the benefits they have had from age 65 to 70 unless they were fully aware of the situation and obtained the necessary certificate. There is another matter which I think should be given very close scrutiny and con- sideration at this time. Under the plan as it has been outlined there is no assurance as there is, for example, under the Ontario Blue [Mr. Martin (Timmins).] Cross plan, that the current monthly rates will remain the same even for the period of one year, as they now do under Blue Cross. Under the Blue Cross plan, the most common hospital plan in Ontario at the present time, you at least have a guarantee for one year as to what the plan is going to cost you. There is no guarantee under the proposed plan, I understand, and that is borne out by a question asked at a meeting held in January, 1958. In Industrial Canada for February, 1958, I find the following question: Will the commission be able to guarantee the premiums set by it for any specific period, as does the Blue Cross? This was the answer: No. It is hoped that the rates will hold but If hospital costs rise payments to hospitals will have to rise. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that clarifi- cation of this very important matter is re- quired. Under this set-up, insured persons would seem to have no guarantee against sudden fluctuations in insurance costs. Another very important matter is that there is no provision at the present time in any way, shape or form for the waiving of premiums of people who are unfortunate enough to have a prolonged stay in the hospital. There is no obligation of any kind on companies or employers to provide cover- age for those people, and certainly common sense tells us that after an extended stay in the hospital a man is far from able to pick up and continue his hospitalization premiums. I feel this matter should be given very careful consideration, and certainly some action taken in that respect. The hon. member who spoke before me made some mention of the case of indigents. From what I have gathered about this particular plan I believe indigents are divided into two categories. The first category is that of patients who are permanently in the in- digent class. They, of course, are provided for under the present plan. I believe a con- siderable amount of confusion and possible distress could be caused amongst patients in the other category, that is people who, through no fault of their own, may be tem- porarily placed in the indigent patient class. This could result from unemployment or some other factor of that kind. Possibly a little later I should like to deal with the particular cost aspects of this matter. Actually the arrangements that have been worked out, as we understand them and in spite of the very clear stand taken by many members of the present cabinet just one year ago, still fail to include the cost of mental and tubercular cases. I should like to quote just one paragraph from Hansard JUNE 17, 1958 for April 10, 1957, page 3380. These are the words of the present Minister of Finance, who said: We as a party and as Her Majesty's loyal opposi- tion have already expressed in the strongest terms our view that there is no justification whatever for the exclusion of these hospitals and institutions from among those that lie within the scope of the scheme of hospital insurance. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister owes all of us in this house an explanation as to why there is such a change from that very definite stand of just one year ago. There is another matter upon which I should like to have some clarification from the minister, if he is in a position to do so. Over the last few months there has been a considerable amount of newspaper advertis- ing concerning the new Ontario hospital plan which will be established the first of next year. These advertisements usually contain an address to which one can write if one needs further information. I had a case drawn to my attention in which a per- son wrote to this address requesting further information about the new hospital plan, and to my amazement the reply had nothing whatever to do with the hospital plan but was a very colourful advertisement for the Ontario Blue Cross plan for supplementary benefits that could be purchased over and above the regular hospital plan. This raises a question in my mind, sir, as to whether the costs of this advertising for another plan are included in the costs of the Ontario hospitalization plan which, in the opinion of many thinking people, appear to be rather high. This brings me to my next point, which is the cost of this plan. Most of us realize that the plan presently proposed is on the basis of $2.10 per month for a single person and $4.20 per month for a family. People generally have been given the idea that that is only one third of the cost and the other two thirds are borne equally by the provincial and federal governments. In fact I have here a copy of a pamphlet entitled "Facts about Hospital Care Insurance; for Residents of Ontario". On page 4 I read: The projected total cost of the hospital Insurance program for 1959, including care and treatment In mental and tuberculosis hospitals, Is about $210 million. Revenue from premiums will total about $75 mil- lion, or about one-third of the cost of the total program. The balance Is being financed by general revenues of the federal and provincial govern- ments. Each level of government will bear approxi- mately one-third of the cost. I should like to point out that those figures are certainly very misleading. As I under- stand this plan, and this is subject to cor- rection-I would be glad if the minister Hospital Insurance Act would inform me if I am wrong-the ar- rangement is that the federal government will pay one half the cost of hospital patients in Ontario, excluding tuberculosis and mental patients. I have also received information that tuberculosis and mental patients take up roughly one half the hospital beds in this country. This would mean that the federal contribution would not be one third but merely one half of one half, which ac- cording to my arithmetic means one quarter. The premiums of individual groups sup- porting this plan will amount to roughly $75 million as estimated in this pamphlet, which is in fact 36 per cent of the estimated $210 million. Well, with the federal govern- ment paying 25 per cent and the individual 36 per cent, this leaves 39 per cent for the Ontario government. If we translate that into dollars it means the federal government would pay $52.5 million, the individual premium payer $75 million, and the Ontario government $82.5 million. This is definitely not the picture presented by the various data put out by the province of Ontario. There is another interesting point, and that is the additional coverage which may be purchased through the various private companies. The information we have received is that a person will be able to pay through the Ontario commission not only the premiums covering the Ontario hospital plan but also any additional premiums for private coverage by a private company. In other words the commission is being used as a check-off for private insur- ance companies that may be selling addi- tional coverage. Once again, sir, I wonder to whom these costs are charged, and whether or not we have been given a true picture of the actual costs of the hospitalization plan. That brings me to the point I mentioned a little while ago, namely the arrangement with regard to temporary indigent patients. As I understand it, the situation at the present time is that these patients are going to be screened by the municipalities, and that once they are judged by the municipal- ities to be eligible for assistance, then the costs will be borne by the municipalities; but the costs coming back from the provin- cial government will not have any relation to the actual costs paid by the municipal- ities but rather will be on a per capita basis for the municipalities to use in any way they see fit. In my opinion that procedure could lead to a situation where you could have your sidewalks paved and the cost charged to the hospital plan. In one sense possibly it does not make much difference, as far as HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act the municipal taxpayer is concerned, which pocket it comes out of as long as he gets full value for his money. However, in all fairness to our hospitalization plan I think some better arrangement than this could be made. I would hope the minister would be able to answer some of these questions. The Chairman: Shall the resolution carry? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I shall try to answer a few of these questions that have been mentioned by hon. members. The hon. member for Welland certainly presented some extremely interesting statis- tics with regard to rising costs generally, and he gave an amazing picture as to the cost jump from approximately $2 to $14 I think that was his last figure-in a com- paratively short space of time. He mentioned the fact that we are not proposing any change in clause 2 (e) having to do with tuberculosis and mental hospitals. That is quite right. The situation bas been un- changed since it was previously mentioned in this house, in fact since the last fiscal conference between the provinces and the federal government. He went to some pains to congratulate the hon. member for Essex East, and with those congratulations I agree wholeheartedly. However, I would point out that it took the previous government since 1919 to get around to bringing in hospital insurance. I should also like to point out that if they had still been in power no provincial governments would be participat- ing; up to January 1, 1959, they would not be in receipt of federal funds. Mr. Martin (Essex East): You are just going to get into a speech. Mr. Monteith (Perth): It is a fact, is it not? Mr. Martin (Essex East): No, it certainly is not. Mr. Monteith (Perth): As to the hon. mem- ber for Timmins, really anything the hon. member had to say came within the jurisdic- tion of the provincial government of the province of Ontario. We actually participate and pay 48.8 per cent of the shareable hospital costs in the province of Ontario. As the hon. member knows, I am sure, we pay 50 per cent of 50 per cent of the across-Canada average and 50 per cent of 50 per cent of the- Mr. Martin (Essex East): Total cost. Mr. Monteith (Perth): -total cost across Canada, and we also share with the provinces- Mr. Martin (Essex East): Is the situation not 50 per cent of the total cost based on 25 per cent of the national average and 25 per cent of the provincial average? [Mr. Martin (Timmins).] Mr. Monteith (Perth): Fifty per cent of the total cost, but half of that is based on the national average cost and the other cost is based on the average provincial cost. The hon. member mentioned old age pen- sioners having to reapply when they become eligible for old age pensions at the age of 70 after having been on old age assistance. My understanding is that this is not so. It has been indicated to us that those who have been on old age assistance prior to age 70, when they reach the age of 70 and become subject to old age pension they will automati- cally come under the scheme and have their premiums paid. As to the rates, here again this is purely a provincial matter as to how they raise their share of hospital costs. Some are going to do so by sales taxes, I presume. Some may do it out of general revenue. Others are doing it on a premium basis. The hon. member suggested that there is no guarantee that these rates may not be raised. That is quite so, but we understand no change is contem- plated for some little time at least. Eventually there may have to be a change. I am not in a position to disagree with that possibility. The bon. member for Skeena, speaking to this resolution earlier, suggested that we should give more consideration to prevention, which is important. I quite agree. In this respect I would point out that we are spend- ing millions for research generally and for the prevention of disease. I feel that the hon. member for Skeena has made a very close study of this matter, and I should like to say that I greatly enjoyed the remarks he made in commenting on the hospitalization scheme. I think I might give a brief resurne of just what the situation is in the various provinces. There seems to have been some concern in the minds of the hon. member for Essex East and the bon. member for Welland to the effect that we had not gotten on with this scheme just as rapidly as we might. I should like to assure them that entirely the opposite has been the case. My officials have visited all the provinces. We have had many provin- cial officials visit Ottawa. We have had two technical conferences at the official level, with some ministers present. I have met with several ministers. Everything possible bas been done to facilitate the signing of agree- ments with the provinces. I should like to point out the situation, taking each province in turn. As the bouse has been informed and as hon. members know, Ontario has signed an agreement under date of March 3 last. This program will come into being on January 1, 1959. As to Newfound- land, the minister of health for Newfound-. land and I signed an agreement on June 9. It will come into effect on July 1, 1958 pro- vided this legislation is passed in order to make it possible. As to Manitoba, the province has passed the requisite legislation. The agreement has been drawn up and is now ready for signing. This province plans to commence its program on July 1, 1958. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I hope the present election results will not interfere with the progress in that connection. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I would not expect it to do so. Mr. Martin (Essex East): You can never tell what a new government will do. Mr. Monteiih (Perth): The province of British Columbia has submitted to the federal government for study their act and draft regulations. After preliminary examination a meeting was held in Ottawa with provincial representatives, with particularly satisfactory results, and an agreement is now before the government for consideration. This plan is expected to commence on July 1. Mr. Martin (Essex East): What province is that? Mr. Monteith (Perth): British Columbia. Mr. McMillan: Did the minister say British Columbia had agreed? Mr. Martin (Essex East): No, there is no agreement; it is not signed. Mr. Monteith (Perth): The agreement is not signed as yet, but the province has submitted its plan and it is now before the government for consideration. Saskatchewan have sub- mitted their acts and revised regulations and draft agreement. Meetings were held last week with representatives of Saskatchewan. We expect to have this agreement signed very shortly and in effect by July 1, 1958. The minister of health for Alberta, Dr. Ross, and some of his officials are expected in Ottawa later this week. Dr. Ross has in- dicated to us their wish to sign an agreement effective as of July 1, 1958. Mr. Martin (Essex East): What is the diffi- culty with regard to Alberta? They were here two weeks ago. Mr. Monteith (Perth): There has been some question as to whether their legislation as it now stands does come within the require- ments of the act. We have had this matter before the Department of Justice for con- sideration. It is hoped that final arrangements for an agreement will be reached by the end of this forthcoming visit. Discussions have been held with New Brunswick both in Ottawa and in Frederic- ton, and they are planning to have their Hospital Insurance Act program in effect by the first of the year. Nova Scotia is in much the same position. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Does that mean that New Brunswick will sign by July lst? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No, effective Janu- ary 1, 1959. I have indicated that we expect five provinces to sign by July 1 so that their schemes can go into effect by that date. Nova Scotia is in the same position as New Brunswick, and it is expected that their pro- grams will commence on January 1, 1959. Prince Edward Island bas announced its in- tention of participating in the program but the province is yet in an early stage of planning and it appears likely its program will start some time in 1959. Quebec has not indicated its intention in respect to the act. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anything more I have to say. There has been some mention of capital cost. I think this government has recognized that there is a need here. We have given consideration to this matter and, as was announced in the house earlier, we have doubled the capital costs construction grants to the various prov- inces. If there are any further questions I shall be glad to answer them, possibly when we get to the bill which is before us. We will be able to go into more detail at the committee stage. Mr. Martin (Essex East): As far as we on this side of the house are concerned we shall reserve our questions and further observa- tions on this matter, to which we attach, understandably, the greatest importance, until we come to the bill. But in forbearing at this time I would nevertheless indicate to the minister that we do not feel he has completely answered the questions which have been put to him, more particularly the questions which were addressed to him the other day. When we get to the bill we shall expect a detailed reply with regard to the reasons why we are in this position now-compelled, in order to meet the im- portant problem which faces Ontario- Mr. Monteith (Perth): What is that, again? Mr. Martin (Essex East): I said we are in this position now in order to assist the province of Ontario in carrying out its very important program on January 1, 1959, and obliged to deal with this particular amend- ment. Mr. Monteith (Perth): No, we are not. I beg to differ. That is not so. Mr. Martin (Essex East): When we come to the bill, I expect to discuss this. Mr. Monieith (Perth): We can discuss it now. JUNE 17, 1958 1215 1216 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act Mr. Martin (Essex East): I do not think there is sufficient time, although I amn prepared to do so. I arn trying to meet the convenience of the minister. 1 arn sirnply indicating to, bim that I do flot want it to be taken that because we aliow the resolu- tion to go through at this time we are satisfied with the answers he has given, because that is flot the case. Mr. Monteilh (Perth): I can extend my answer very briefly. Certainly notbing having to do witb this amendment affects Ontario. It is quite obviaus that we will have at least eight agreements signed by the end of the year and according to the provi- sions of the present act ail we need is six, inciuding Ontario. 1 think that answers the bon. member's question. Mr. McMiiIan: May I ask the minister a question? I think hie stated that British Columbia is submitting a plan. Has British Columbia already submitted a plan? Is there wide latitude in the plans that they rnay submit? Mr. Monteilh (Perth): Let me put it this way: this is not one national hospitai scheme, one hospital scheme on a national basis; it is proposed that there be ten different provincial schemes ail coming within the scope of the act. They can and do differ in somne respects. Mr. Martin (Essex East): The act permits that. We will go into ail that witb great care later. Mr. Martin (Timmins): I should like to thank the minister for replying to the ques- tion as hie has done. There is only one other question to wbich I should like an answer at this time-the matter bas been referred to already by the hon. member for Welland- that is, in view of the definite stand which was taken by members of this government wlth regard to mental and tubercular patients a year ago, could the minister make any comment at this time on how soon we may expect the government to implement their poiicy in this respect, or give reasons wby no such provisions have been included on this occasion? Mr. Monteiih (Perth): No, Mr. Chairman, 1 have no comment to make on that except to repeat what I said a moment ago to the eff ect that this was discussed at the last federai- provincial conference. The situation is un- changed since that time. Mr. Argue: I think the statement that the minister bas made is extremeiy disappointing. It is most disappointing to the people of Can- ada that the government shouid have failed to take action to bring mental and tubercular [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] institutions under this plan. Certainly the stand which was taken by the government in this regard is completely clear. There can be no doubt that the government favoured bring- ing tubercular and mental patients under this legisiation, and I amn amazed that the minister is not able to give the committee some further information regarding what the government intends to do in this field. I tbink the minister should be reminded of the very definite stand which was taken by bis own party and by the Prime Minister in par- ticular in the 1957 election campaign. Accord- ing to the Winnipeg Tribune of May 14 of that year and I quote: The Conservatives . . . would repair a "serious omission" in the federal health plan which does not include tubercular and mental institutions. And according to a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 28, 1957 datelined Saskatoon, May 27, the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition said: The Conservative party still believes that hos- pital insurance should cover patients in mental and tuberculosis institutions. Moreover, the records of this bouse demon- strate very adequateiy the stand which has been taken by the Conservative party. Cer- tainly prior to botb elections the people of this country were led to believe that tuber- culosis and mental institutions would be brought under a health plan. Speaking in this bouse on April 10, 1957, as reported on page 3386 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had this to say as leader of tbe opposition at that time: Now that we are passing such legislation, every reasonable facet of the problem should be met. for once the legisiation finds jts place on the statute books an amendment in order to cover tuberculosis sanatoria and institutions and mental institutions will be almost impossible of attaloment. I can- not see that this demand is unreasonable and I feel that reality demanda acceptance of the principle contained in the amendment moved. Those words of the Prime Minister sbould be reiterated in this debate by ail bon. members wbo are interested in having a comprebensive healtb plan. The Prime Min- ister went on to say: -the goal that ail of us have in mmnd will not be achieved until the two types of institutions to which 1 have made reference are included within the provisions of this legislation. I arn wondering if the minister can say what studies are presently being conducted in bis department in the field of a general beaitb insurance plan. From statements that have been made in this bouse on previous occasions I know that such a study bas been made in tbe past and it is probabiy a continuing study. My question is whether the present goverfiment, even tbougb its Position bas not changed since the federai-provinciai conference, is baving studies made within 1216 the department as to how mental and tuber- culosis institutions might be brought under the plan and an over-all health insurance plan introduced? Mr. Monieith (Perth): Mr. Chairman, I have no further comment. The situation is simply unchanged since December last, as I have mentioned before. Mr. Argue: But could the minister tell us whether any studies are being made in his department for the purpose I have outlined? Mr. Monteith (Perth): Up to the moment the staff have beeen concentrating for some months on getting the present hospital scheme into operation and we expect to get that under way immediately. Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Monieith (Perth) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Serv- ices Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ACT CONTINUATION OF AUTHORITY RESPECTING TRANSPORT OF GOODS IN BULK, ETC. Hon. Alvin Hamilton (for the Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolu- tion: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Transport Act to provide for the continuation for a further period of two years of authority to make regulations for the control of transport of goods in bulk includ- ing, amongst other things, the appointment of one or more controllers and one or more deputy con- trollers to carry out the provisions of such regula- tions, and the payment of their remuneration. He said: Mr. Speaker, may this order of business stand? Could we proceed to take item No. 9 on today's order paper with respect to a measure to provide for the withdrawal of certain lands from Cape Breton Highlands national park. Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): Mr. Speaker, the order was called last night in this sequence and our members are here ready to discuss item No. 7 as it now stands on the order paper. If we were to go on to the other item on the agenda it would inter- fere with the order of the business announced last night. Mr. Speaker: Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources consent to let this question stand? Some hon. Members: No. Department of Transport Act Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): I think in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) we should pause for just a moment in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). Mr. Chevrier: The minister is arriving now. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider this resolution. Motion agreed to and the house went into conimittee, Mr. Rea in the chair. Mr. Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement? Mr. Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The terms of the resolution are very clear and I believe that no explanation of the purpose is really necessary. I may say, however, that parlia- ment amended the Department of Transport Act in 1954 to enable the governor in council to make regulations for the purpose of ensuring: -prompt, efficient and orderly transport of goods in bulk. This amendment embodied in section 6 (a) of the act was by further amendment in May 1956 extended until May 31, 1958. The sole purpose of the legislation which it is pro- posed to introduce following the adoption of this resolution is to extend the life of section 6(a) of the act until May 31, 1960. As hon. members already know the pur- pose of this amendment is simply to make it possible for the government, if at any time it appears necessary to do so, to appoint a transport controller to assist the board of grain commissioners in allocating box cars for the better and easier handling of our grain crop. Since we formed the govern- ment a year ago there has been no need for appointing such a controller but at some time in the future it might be deemed necessary and a controller would be appointed. This amendment is simply to give the government the right to appoint a controller if it is con- sidered desirable to do so. Mr. Argue: I wonder if I might ask the minister a question before he sits down, Mr. Chairman. Is the purpose of obtaining this power the possibility or probability-either one-of a transport controller being necessary in order to carry out the recommendations, whatever they may be, of the Bracken com- mission inquiring into the distribution of box cars? Mr. Hees: It is not possible for us to say what the recommendations of the Bracken commission are going to be until that com- mission has reported but it was originally intended to renew the life of this provision 1217JUNE 17, 1958 Department of Transport Act before it expired on May 31. It was not pos- sible to bring forward this amendment before May 31 of this year and it is considered desir- able to enable the government to have the right to appoint a transport controller if such an appointment is considered necessary at any time and if it is not considered necessary then of course one will not be appointed. Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the statement which he has just made on the powers which are being sought by the government in this resolution. I do think, however, that he should have been somewhat more explicit and have dealt more at length with the reasons for the ex- tension of those powers, having regard par- ticularly to the attitude which was taken on this measure not so much by my hon. friend but by those with whom he was associated when they sat on this side of the house. I do agree with him when he says that the resolution is a simple one in that it divides itself into three parts: first, the resolu- tion seeks an amendment to the Department of Transport Act in order to provide for the continuation of certain powers, as set out in that act, for a period of two years; second, to make regulations for the control of trans- port of goods in bulk; and, third, the appoint- ment, as the minister has stated, of a trans- port controller or a deputy transport controller, as the case may be, and to pay him remuneration. This resolution covers not only the move- ment of box cars but also the movement of ships and the controller, whoever he may be, if he is appointed would have very wide powers under the regulations that are sought to be extended. As a matter of fact, those powers were contained in an amendment to the Department of Transport Act which was passed by this house and which now forms part of the statutes of Canada 2-3, Elizabeth II, 1953-54, chapter 30. It was an amendment to the Department of Transport Act which was then known as section 6(a)(i)(ii). There- in are contained succinctly the powers that are being extended by this legislation. The position of the opposition is, of course, going to be one which is consistent with the attitude it adopted when it was in office. There is no doubt in our minds that this extension should be granted; there is no doubt in our minds that these powers should be continued; there is-no doubt in our minds that this legislation at the resolution stage should be approved. I do think, however, that the minister should have given some explanation for the attitude taken by his party when it was on this side of the house, because at that time very strong exception [Mr. Hees.] was taken to the extension of those powers. So strong was the exception taken to those powers and their extension that on one oc- casion the debate lasted a considerable length of time. For the edification of the committee I would like to réad to the hon. gentleman some of the statements that were made on that occasion. Mr. Montgomery: Why read all that? Mr. Chevrier: I cannot hear what the hon. gentleman is saying. Mr. Montgomery: Carry on, then. Mr. Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has such a weak voice that from this side of the house it appears like a mumble. If he has anything to say I wish he would speak up. I was saying I would like to read back to the committee some of the things that were said during the course of a similar debate when hon. gentlemen who now sit on the government side were sitting on this side of the house. I would like to quote from Hansard of 1956, at page 3228; the present Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Prince Albert, is reported as having said: The transport controller bas the power to order any person dealing with any bulk transport to transport goods in bulk, to fix minimum quotas, maximum ratios and so forth. So great are the powcrs conferred that, no matter what he does, as long as he acts within the powers conferred upon him there is no right of action. If any person fails to fulfil any contract or obligation because of the order of the controller, it is a good defence to an action against such a person to place before the court and prove the allegation tnat what was donc was done pursuant to the order of the trans- port controller. Then, later on, during the course of the same debate, at page 3274, the same gentle- man had this to say: So far as regulations are concerned I may say that the Supreme Court of Canada paid its tribute to the kind of regulations the minister's department bas brought into being by referring to them as inconsistent with justice and derogatory of the rights of individuals. Well, if that language, which was pretty strong at the time, still stands I would have believed that the minister would have thought it incumbent upon him not to demand the extension of those powers, without explana- tion. Then, again, in volume IV of Hansard of 1956, at page 3496, there is a quotation from the same gentleman that I would like to read: The regulations provide for a transport controller having authority ta order any person dealing in various bulk commodities to fix minimum quotas, to fix proportions and the like and also to order any person dealing in bulk transport facilities, which include railways, steamships and the like, to extend, furnish, supply or make use of any bulk transport facilities for transporting any bulk commodities. HOUSE OF COMMONS1218 These powers are very wide. The transport con- troller becomes almost, if not completely, omnip- otent. His authority Is above the law; his dis- cretion is unchallengeable. I would think that those qualifications of the powers of the transport controller, if he is appointed under the regulations as they are now before us, would be exactly the same today as they were then, because I presume there bas been no amendment to those regula- tions and that is one of the questions which I would like to ask the minister. I hope he will be able to tell us whether, during the course of time his government bas been in office, there bas been any amendment to those regulations. I presume there have not been any but if there has been any I would hope they would be given to the house. The government of Canada provided for the appointment of a transport controller in the month of August, 1951, under the Emer- gency Powers Act, and subsequently there was put in the statutes legislation generally known as Bill No. 443, and containing the terms of the order in council P.C. 4535. It was the opinion of the government at that time that due to the heavy demand upon all forms of transportation particularly lake and rail some authority was necessary to ensure an equi- table distribution of the various bulk com- modities such as grain,. iron ore, coal, sarid, pulpwood and the like. The main duties of the transport controller had to do with the hauling and handling of grain; first, to make sure that when grain is sold by the Canadian wheat board or any other exporter the grain moves freely to the seaboard port when the vessels present themselves for their loads; second, to see that transportation does not limit the amount of grain which can be sold by Canada. There are, as the bouse knows, four outlets for the export of grain in this country. There is the Pacific coast outlet made up of the ports of Vancouver, New Westminster and Prince Rupert, all of which are open the year round. Then there is the port of Churchill which is open for a period of about two and a half months. There are also the St. Lawrence ports with a navigation season lasting for about eight months. Finally, there are the Atlantic ports of Halifax and Saint John which, while open for navigation all year, are used for the export of grain during the months of December to April inclusive when the St. Lawrence ports are closed. At this moment I am particularly concerned with the movement of grain in the St. Law- rence area. I am sure that other members of the house will deal with the problems having to do with western Canada but as I speak at the moment I am particularly interested in the movement through St. Lawrence river Department of Transport Act ports. This movement originates at the lake- head. The grain is moved in three circuits. First, grain is moved by means of lake carriers down the great lakes for trans-shipment at the ports of Port Colborne, Prescott or King- ston from where it is trans-shipped in canal- lers to Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec, Sorel and other such ports for further trans- shipment overseas. The second way is the lake and rail route. That shipment is by water to the bay ports and from the bay ports to Montreal and other St. Lawrence ports by rail. The third movement is an all water movement from the head of the lakes to Montreal and other St. Lawrence ports by means of canallers. The reason I raise this matter is that there has been serious complaint at the port of Montreal that it has not been receiving a sufficient quantity of grain. In other words, the same quantity of grain that obtained in the past has not been there for trans- shipment overseas. I do not have the figures before me at the present time but I recall a recent statement made by the shipping author- ities of the port of Montreal complaining bitterly that the movement of grain towards St. Lawrence ports was diminishing and was not nearly as substantial as it has been in the past. What are the reasons for this? I know they are manifold. I should like to bring the situation to the attention of the minister and say that one reason may well be the fact that a transport controller is not there to direct this movement of grain. That may have something to do with it. I am sure there are other reasons. I am sure that the proximity of the" Pacific coast ports to the wheat area also has a great deal to do with it and I am sure that rates have some influence on the situation. But I would direct the minister's attention particularly to the -fact that there was no serious complaint in the past and I do not see why it is not possible to distribute the movement of grain in a more equitable manner. I realize that much of the grain moves during the short navigation season to the port of Churchill. There is an area within a certain radius of the port from which I presume it is much less costly to move grain to that port and from there to the United Kingdom market. But the practice has grown up over the years to send a substantial movement to the port of Montreal and with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and the fact that there are interests in the United States Who state categorically that they will ship their wheat down this route to overseas markets by way of Montreal and other St. Lawrence ports it becomes more and more JUNE 17, 1958 1219 HOUSE OF COMMONS Department of Transport Act important to make sure that this movement is assured and that facilities exist for trans- shipment at Montreal. There are a number of questions I should like to address to the minister. First, follow- ing the line of the leader of the C.C.F. party, can the minister give the house some indica- tion whether or not a transport controller will be appointed? Does he think, that the usefulness of a transport controller has disappeared entirely? Does he feel or do his officers feel, having regard to the present situation with respect to both railways and ships, that such an officer should not be appointed at this time? What is the present personnel of what remains of that office? Is it now being administered by the Department of Transport? If it is, I wish the minister would give us details. I am sure that the C.C.F. leader will deal with the box car situation in western Canada in greater detail than I will but this matter is always one of interest to the house. I remember when I was on the other side of the house I was required to give from time to time the position respecting the shortage of box cars across Canada. What is the present position of C.N.R. and C.P.R. box cars in Canada? Is there a shortage of box cars? How many Canadian box cars are now held in the United States and, vice versa, what is the number of United States box cars in Canada? What is the proper balance as between the two? Did the minister want to say something? Mr. Hees: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first question of the hon. member for Laurier- Mr. Chevrier: I had not finished. Mr. Hees: Oh. Mr. Chevrier: I thought the minister was rising to ask a question but if he wants to interject- Mr. Hees: I do not want to interject. I thought the hon. member wanted me to answer these questions. Mr. Chevrier: I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the orders of the day today what the position was with reference to the box car investigation being carried on at the present time. I did not get much enlightenment from his answer. It may be that the Minister of Transport will be able to give the house more information. Then, what is the position with reference to ships? Are there the required number in the great lakes area? Are ships required for the move- ment of ore under the purview of this resolu- tion or of these powers? Most of the time [Mr. Chevrier.] when the house has been considering this resolution, it has been directing its attention to the rail aspect of transportation. I think one should not neglect the water aspect. Is there the required number of vessels? Those are questions that occurred to me as I was looking at this resolution. I sum up by saying that there will be no doubt as to our position. We will want to support the extension of these powers be- cause this is legislation similar to that which we proposed to this house. But I would appreciate from the minister some comment as to the attitude taken by his colleagues when on this side of the house, with refer- ence to the powers, with reference to the rights of parliament that would be affected by the passage of these tremendous powers. I would hope the minister would not limit himself simply to a short general statement such as he has made. I am sure he will want to give the bouse, not only the answers to the questions that have been asked and will be asked in the course of this discussion but he will want also to justify the attitude of the government in the light of the position they took when they were on this side of the house. Mr. Argue: Mr. Chairman, we in this group have taken the position, since the war that a transport controller was needed for the efficient movement and allocation of box cars amongst elevator points on the prairies. However it seems to me the attitude taken by the government in presenting this resolution at this time is a very strange one. The Con- servative party over the years objected to the former Liberal government being given wide, all-inclusive powers. The former minister of trade and commerce, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, was castigated and crit- icized for having very wide powers which he could use at his discretion. It would seem to me that the Conservative party is not in a suitable role in presenting this motion, in the light of its traditions and in the light of its actions in this house for many years. The Conservative party bas always objected to wide powers being taken by the govern- ment under particular circumstances. We in this group have always been prepared to look at any given case on its merits. If we have felt that wide powers were necessary, we were quite prepared to grant them. I believe, and now I am talking from the standpoint of the Conservative party's record, that in presenting this resolution at this time they are on very weak ground. I say they are on weak ground because of the answer just given by the Minister of Transport. It is one thing to say we want wide powers when there is a specific job to do 1220 JUNE 17, 1958 that requires wide powers. It is another thing to say to this house, we want wide powers on a speculative basis to take care of some undisclosed, unstated emergency which might arise at some time in the future. I should like to see the hon. member for Greenwood take a good look at this resolu- tion, and try to judge for himself whether or not it is a wise thing for the government to ask for such broad powers for undisclosed and unstated purposes. There may be a need for such powers. As a matter of fact, I think there is a need for such powers. I do not feel I am being inconsistent. I should like to see a member of the government stand up and tell us what they are going to do with these powers, then let us judge the necessity for them on the basis of the proposed action. I do not think it is good enough for the minister to say, we want these powers and we may or may not use them. I ask the minister whether these powers might be connected with the Bracken commission inquiry into box car allocations. I see him shaking his head in the negative. I cannot conceive of anything else they might have to do with. I am quite prepared to stand corrected, but as the former minister of transport well knows and as the present minister knows, this act has been used exclusively or almost exclusively in con- nection with the movement of grain. I believe that little, if any, of the power has been used in connection with the other com- modities named. I cannot see why, therefore, the govern- ment should want these powers unless it contemplates using the powers. I cannot conceive of any use to which the powers might be put other than as a result of the report that Mr. John Bracken may be making at some future date. The government has told us of the very heavy agenda that faces parliament at this time. The speech from the throne indicated there might be a great deal of work for this session. We have asked the Prime Minister what action might be taken on Dr. Clark's report, which might lead to an increase in pensions paid to elderly people. His answer was that there was an abundance of work for this session. He did not feel for this reason that parliament should be asked to deal with any such report during this session. Yet we have a minister presenting a resolution at this time and saying he does not know to what use the powers might be put. He wants these powers for two years, but he does not know for what purpose. He just wants to have them around. This sounds worse than C. D. Howe used to sound when he wanted powers. Usually, he wanted them for a purpose, and very often a laudable purpose. The present Minister of Transport Department of Transport Act just wants to have authority. He does not know if he is going to have a transport con- troller or a deputy controller, and he does not know whether any power will be used. But, even in peacetime, he wants to have power and I ask him, for what purpose? Mr. McCleave: Are you in favour of him having it? Mr. Argue: If he will do what I want him to do with it, and if he will use it in the way I should like him to use it, yes. Certainly, there is a need for it. When I asked him what the purpose was he did not say there would be a necessity for exercising such powers in connection with the distribution of box cars for the movement of grain. His answer was that he did not think it had anything to do with the Bracken royal commission. The producers on the prairie are as dissatisfied with the distribution of box cars under this administration as they were under the other administration in recent years. Producers are concerned that the allocation of box cars is forcing them to deliver grain to elevators that they did not choose. They are asking that this power be used to provide a fair and equitable system of box car allocation. The grain producers of the prairies, through their main farm organizations, are in favour of a transport controller being appointed and they are in favour of the transport controller using his power to allocate box cars in order to allow farmers to deliver grain to the ele- vator of their choice. There are few other groups in this country which are forced by circumstances to do business with firms with which they do not wish to do business. The grain producer-and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources knows this very well-has little or no choice because of economic circumstances. A few box cars are dropped off at elevator A and the farmers all line up in front of elevator A to deliver their grain because they are badly in need of money at that time. Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): You will admit that we are doing something about it. Mr. Argue: No more than the other gov- ernment did. As a matter of fact, I have some figures to show that you are just about a tie. As a matter of fact, up until June 9 you are just a little worse than the other government. Mr. Chevrier: I get some consolation out of that statement. Mr. Argue: Of course, things are now im- proving slightly. In fairness, I must point that out. Farmers marketings from August 1, 1956 to June 5, 1957 in the prairie prov- inces totalled 442 million bushels. In a similar HOUSE OF COMMONS Department of Transport Act period of time under the present administra- tion, from August 1, 1957 to June 4, 1958, farmers' marketings were 396.1 million bushels. Hence the present government has a policy-or bas not a policy, whichever way you want to look at it-which has had the result that during this period of time pro- ducers in the prairie provinces have marketed 46 million bushels less grain than they marketed under the previous administration. So when the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that things are im- proving may I suggest that those figures do not seem to bear out that suggestion. It is true that at the present time there is an improved movement of grain. It is correct to say that box cars are going out on the prairies in sizeable quantity and that there is an improved marketing of grain at this time. I do not know whether or not the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would wish to hazard a guess whether farmers' marketings during the pres- ent crop year will exceed those of the last crop year. They have quite a long distance to go in order to do so. Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): The main thing is that we have sold more abroad. Mr. Argue: That is only part of it. The main thing is for the farmer to have an income; and the only way in which he can have an income is to deliver grain. Hence on the basis of farm deliveries the position is just a little worse this year than it was last year. The minister says they are selling more. That is truc as far as wheat is con- cerned. It is not true as far as barley is concerned and it is not truc as far as fiax is concerned. However, it is truc as far as wheat is concerned. There is a noticeable improvement there. It has been my pleasure in this house in previous years to sponsor a bill setting forth a precise formula for box car distribution amongst various marketing points. I have promoted the proposition that once a year farmers should be able to indicate, by way of a ballot, the elevator to which they wish to deliver their grain; and that after having so indicated their choice, box cars in the subsequent crop year should be allocated amongst elevator companies in accordance with the farmers' wishes. As far as I know, that was the first enunciation of such a policy. I am pleased that farm organizations in general now have supported my proposal and have presented it to the Bracken royal commission. I am hopeful that the royal commission may make such a recommenda- tion. If it does so, this legislation can have some sense and some practical application. [Mr. Argue.] There is another method by which equity could be advanced. That method would be by the payment to farmers of storage for grain stored on their farms. If the govern- ment did that the farmers themselves would be able to deliver grain almost any time throughout the crop year with less compulsion because of economic circumstances. The Min- ister of Northern Affairs and National Resources says that this government is doing better than the previous government did. Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle): A lot better. Mr. Argue: "A lot better", the minister says. I do not think there is much difference. With great respect to the minister, I do not think that the results in Manitoba would in- dicate that the people out there are very happy about what has happened since March 31st. Mr. McGee: They are voting in a provincial election. Mr. Argue: My hon. friend says they are voting in a provincial election. Where were all the Manitoba Liberal members of parlia- ment during the last few weeks? Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. An hon. Member: Where were you? Mr. Argue: I have been so accustomed for so many years to saying that about the Liberal party that I have used the wrong terminology. But what was done so un- successfully in the past by Liberals has been copied by the Conservative members with about the same degree of success. The great majority of Conservative members for Manitoba were not here in the last few weeks in this house. They were out in Manitoba explaining the federal government's policy, no doubt; and they have explained the policy so badly and the farmers are so greatly opposed to what the government is doing, that even though the Conservative party was able to get 100 per cent of the seats on March 31, they are down to less than 50 per cent in yesterday's election. The Depu±y Chairman: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the bouse, as the case may be. Progress reported. COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING COMPANIES IN DEFAULT ON RETURNS Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the Companies Act (annual returns). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a rather unusual course on this bill so I want JUNE 17, 1958 to explain just how I came to get interested in it. In the last house, in following up some of the dealings of the former member for Port Arthur, I was checking up on a private holding company he happened to have because I was interested in discovering what relation- ship a certain very high civil servant had with this private company of the minister. I discovered that in the last year or two, though that company should have submitted a report to the Secretary of State (Mr. Courte- manche), no report had been submitted, and so I had to work on ancient information. Thus I submitted a question on the orders of the day to determine how many corporations were in default, in the years indicated, with regard to information summaries under sec- tion 125 of the Companies Act, and I dis- covered that there was a total in 1957 of 287 public companies and 893 private com- panies which were in default. If any hon. members look up the penalty provided under that section they will find it is substantial. I wanted to know how many prosecutions had been laid against those com- panies in default and I was informed that there had never been any prosecutions. Fortunately I was never exposed to legal training, and this led me to ask the question: why have something in the law which pro- vides a penalty which no one ever bothers to exercise? And so I felt the thing to do to clear up this situation of having 1,800 companies in default-in a sense, defying the law and yet the law not prosecuting them- was to abolish the whole matter, and so I went ahead with this amendment to the Companies Act. The first purpose of the amendment is to repeal subsection 4 of sec- tion 125 of the act. This is the section which says: Where a company makes default in complying with any requirement of this section, It Is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which the default continues, and every director and officer of the company who knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits the default is liable to the like penalty, and such fines may be recoverable on summary conviction. After I had put the bill on the order paper I discovered through the Secretary of State -through the officials of that department -that they had already taken steps to clear up this very thing that I was after. Through the courtesy of the minister I was able to spend a considerable time examining the set-up of the Companies Act agency and just how the provisions of the act were carried out. It is a minor matter, and I am quite willing to concede it. I am very pleased to hear that the Secretary of State was under way in his move to check up on this particular point before my bill was on the order paper, and because the Companies Act minister is now in the house and prepared to make a statement on the steps which have been taken I should like at this present time to yield the floor to the Secertary of State and have him make his statement with regard to this particular matter. Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, the first purpose of this amendment is to repeal subsection 4 of sec- tion 125 of the Companies Act. This section applies to companies with share capital. The subsection to be repealed, at present reads as follows: Where a company makes default in complying with any requirement of this section, it is liable to a fine not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which the default continues, and every director and officer of the company who knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits the default is liable to the like penalty, and such fines may be recoverable on summary conviction. The second purpose of the amendment is to ensure, by the proposed new subsection 4, that parliament is informed each year of any company which fails to file an annual summary in proper form with the Secretary of State. I think I should outline the reasons why the bill should not be enacted. Even though no prosecutions were ever undertaken under subsection 4, nevertheless its very presence in the statute has a salutary effect. If circumstances arose where a com- pany deliberately refused to file a return no effective means would be available to the department to enforce compliance by threat of prosecution or to have a penalty imposed by means of a prosecution if the subsection were repealed. Furthermore, the presence of subsection 4 creates an offence for which an aggrieved party could launch a private prosecution, a right which would no longer be available if the subsection were repealed. There are approximately 12,000 companies which file the returns each year. These returns are required to be filed on or before June lst in each year. In each year, there are ap- proximately 1,500 companies which do not file by June 1 for a variety of reasons, such as the absence of a signing officer, oversight or a psychological abhorrence of business people to file government returns. The returns arrive in the department in a deluge from the middle of May to the middle of June each year and the departmental staff is busily engaged in processing the returns received. This processing takes approxi- mately three months. The primary purpose of the return is to have the information respecting the com- panies. Therefore, when the bulk of the re- turns received is disposed of, the department sends out a notice addressed to all companies HOUSE OF COMMONS Companies Act in default. There is no statutory requirement for this notice being mailed, but it is a practice taken to follow up on defaulting companies. This notice usually results in about 1,300 of the 1,500 defaulting companies filing the returns, leaving about 200 com- panies each year. When these companies are in default to file returns for three consecutive years, sub- section 9 of section 125 requires the Secretary of State to give notice, by registered letter addressed to the company or its president as shown by the last summary filed; that is, should the Secretary of State desire to apply to the company the sanction provided by subsections 9 and 10. By subsection 9 the company is required to prove to the satisfac- tion of the Secretary of State that it is still a subsisting company. Under subsection 10 if, at the end of one month from the date of such notice the Secretary of State has not received a response from the company or its president, the com- pany may be deemed not to be a subsisting corporation and no longer entitled to the sole use of its corporate name. The registered notices mentioned in sub- section 9 do not result in many of the de- faulting companies submitting returns. These companies were incorporated by the ap- plicants with high hopes which did not mate- rialize, and they simply give up. The directors all resign, and there are no funds or assets in the company. In a recent judgment of the court of appeal in the province of Quebec, in the Acme Vacuum case, it was held that even though a company does not file returns for three consecutive years and does not respond to the registered notice sent under subsection 9 the company does not lose its corporate status or the right to the sole use of its name, unless so deemed. As a consequence of this decision the department now waits for 30 days for a reply to the notice. If no reply is received, a further 30 day period is allowed to elapse and then a further notice is sent to the company deeming it not to be a subsisting corporation. The practice of sending this further notice was inaugurated in 1955, following the deci- sion of the Quebec appeal court in the Acme Vacuum case reported in (1953) Queen's Bench 188, and 19 Canadian Practice Reports 45, and has not resulted in more than six companies establishing that they are subsist- ing and filing annual summaries in arrears. I quite agree that in addition to the deter- rent effect of subsection 4 it should be enforced where circumstances warrant a prosecution. Therefore, steps have been taken by the officers of the department to compile [Mr. Courtemanche.] a list of companies in default. A list of the companies -212 in number-in default to file summaries for the periods ending March 31, 1956 and 1957, together with a list of their directors, has been prepared. Notices are now being sent to these companies and their directors, together with arrival receipt cards pointing out the provisions of subsection (4). The reason that directors are being notified is to acquaint them with a knowledge of their obligations and because for a prosecution against a director to be successful he must have "knowingly and wilfully" authorized or permitted the default. A further list of companies in default to file a summary for the period ending March 31, 1957 is also completed, together with the directors. This list contains the names of 350 companies. Notices are also being sent to these companies and their directors. Depend- ing on the nature of the replies to be received investigation will be undertaken in co-opera- tion with the officers of the department, the R.C.M.P. and the officers of the Department of Justice to ascertain the possibility of success- ful prosecutions. If the results of such inves- tigation disclose that the companies are in fact carrying on business and that a prosecu- tion would not prove abortive, such prosecu- tions will be undertaken. I should also add that information is avail- able in the department to any person who inquiries as to any specific company. The tariff of fees, as prescribed by P.C. 1954-1922 as amended by P.C. 1955-51 passed under section 141 of the Companies Act, contains an item-"Searches-each $1.00." There is another item entitled "Searches-within such categories as may be exempted by order of the Secretary of State-no fee". I can assure the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am quite prepared to consider ordering that any inquiry by a member of parliament as to whether one or more specified companies have filed their annual summaries under section 125 in specified years be exempted under this item. However, a list has not been prepared list- ing all companies in default to file annual summaries since confederation and those com- panies incorporated before 1867, which are subject to the Companies Act-although in- formation is available with respect to each such company-because such would be a prodigious task at this late date. Incidentally, if the bill were to be enacted it would necessitate other amendments to the Companies Act; for example, subsection (7) of section 125 would have to be repealed. Furthermore, as the proposed new subsection (4) would call for the names and addresses of "managers" and "officers", subsection (1) para- grapli (r) of section 125 would have to be amended ta require disclosure of titis informa- tion in the annual summary. Representations have been received from members a! the legal profession expressing the view that "the suggested report ta parlia- ment does not seem. ta have mucli menit, par- ticularly if the penal clause is eliminated." It is alsa represented that the tabling in parliament of sucli lists would resuit in an unnecessary cluttering of parlîament's records, bearing in mind that most companies actively carrying on their business do in fact file their returns and that the companies that are in default are largely inactive companies whose affairs would be of very iittle interest ta more than a few people, and also that many cam- panies use the non-filing o! returns as a means of letting a company die and there is no improper intent in this, so f ar as the share- holders are concerned. I have already outlined the procedure following in the department under subsection (9) and (10) of section 125 with respect ta defaulting campanies, more particularly those that presumably are inac- tive and may be deemed ta be no longer existing. However, should there appear from this debate ta be a general demand in the house for this, I would be glad ta consider including a list of defaulting campanies in the annuai repart of my department which is tabled in parliament. The report of the department for the year 1958-1959 for instance ýcould list the companies which defaulted in 1958 and were still in default on Mardi 31, 1959. Mr. Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information that lias just been given by the Secretary of State I would ask for leave with the unanimous consent af the house ta withdraw the bill. Mr. Speaker: The mover o! thus motion lias proposed that with unanimous consent of the house the motion and bill be severally withdrawn. Is it the pleasure of the house ta permit the motion and bill to be withdrawn? Same hon. Members: Agreed. Order discharged and bill withdrawn. CANADA ELECTIONS ACT EXTENSION 0F RIGHT TO VOTE AT ADVANcE POLLS Mr. D. M. Fisher Z ce 45 'e pýýpU HOUSE The Budget-Customs Tariff 1254 t'c -b- .-t., c- t t, t Co -a [Mr. a,> t---ý -C),C- C; C -0 > ID CD CD RI ý Oq t, '9 t,-, 0F COMMONS Q O at--t-' ~ a,~Q. ê~ Q.tt- t- E-t t- t- Q t-C, c c t- -t5,~ -e t c t- rt-t n--t t t--- -- t- t, t- t- p-t t- t- 'a, O t- t- Q. - Q. t--a O - t--t t- t- t- Q. t., O r- Q te Q*91 Q. t- Q O~O~ O O t, t- t- t- êt- Q.~ Q. t--O, Q. t-t,, t, Q.ç~t uo t- t- t-t-t-a, - t-t- t, -I t- c ~ -~ t-~at~~ - -t-t-~ ,~w-. t- t-t--:-- t-: ~ C. t-c--., t--t-' t-0>t- -t-., -t- -N ~ 'n c~t-~a, ~ t-, -'-'--t-t-a, ~ t-~ t- t- = 0n~ t- t- t.,~t- t--t., t- -t-' a,-,t- Q t- t- t- -t., t- -~ Q. 't-a,'-,, - 0> 0>0 t- tt-t- t, ~ce, --~ -t -,t-t,~t- - 0> 0>,~, - t-t-t, 0 ) - ast-t, t-?at- -'t- t-t- t--t-''t--t- t-a, -t- ~ ~ -~ t- 0> t- t-t- t- ~ ,~a, t-a,-~-~'t-~t- t, 0> -t- t-t-ttt, t-0>t-t- -~t- Et- t-t- t- t-,, ~ ~t-t--~t- t-t-t-t-a, t., t- -- t- 't-t-t- t-t- t t i- "-t- at, t-t-: 0>t- t- -t- at- tt- t- - -t- ~~0> t-~t- t- t-t-t- tt- 0 > -- t t- t- t-t-t, -~ t-'~ ~ t--t- t, a, t,~t-t, t--t-., t- t- t- t- t- t- - t, Q.r'-, t-t- .nt-t- -~ t, - 0> t- - a, - t-Q - t- t-.~t- -t- t, - t-t-~t- -~ t-: Ct- ct- ~ c>, t-t, c .,.-tQ.t- t, - ~ ~ t- - a,-'~ a, - t--.--- t, t-, t-t- ~t, -c~ t-ct-Q. t- ~ -~- t--et-: ~t- -et-t, - t-,t- t- t--s -~ Z::- t- a, .t- t.t t- t- ~ Ct t-t t-t VO O t- t., t- t,- t- t- t- 0t- Fleming (Eglinton) .j CD Il0 tC t- C> Oc te, - wu,-- JUNE 17, 1958 1255 The Budget-Customs Tariff e' CD c > lm D CD et- t- e c- cqn cq ~ on . q ' t- CD CDe o C à -ý C e e co m CI c e q e ecq OO -0 OR E o o e onn n O e .2 0 c c e nee ne ne - cl r 87e e e e ~ ~ ~ Ç o . e c, e e e ~ ~ b eo. e * . e -~~~ nen e4n nenei o- t e e 8 M, m do , n..5o.S e-o -o -o ~e. e eD &D *3' ~ The Budget-Customs o F-C Q C Qo C o O 4~t E-et o O r; .0 -i-' C> Ct:~ ~ Pi HOUSE Tariff 0F COMMONS v~ c 0 C ee C. ew 49-a CC~~ ~ c> COC .c: CDC Ci> t-Q ' CD O *) ID CD 0- -t a) C. C. Q) 0 C .>C t- wC -Q CO ' t- e Q C. CC .C1 r; t-- a,o r; CC 0 0QCC C.C E E +' +' O .0 ~'-t-? C O -e -4--C O O OC C.o C...O"e-C--C -C--C Q CC%- Q0 C.."e Q --4--C .0 "e C a> a>CO~ - C~C O Q 0 'C-' a> Pi 'C t-O 'C a> Q r; "ea~E 5C.C O -E-SE -C-, 0 jEE C00 O 0.0 "e.0+' t0CC CCCE OC oEo ~ CC 4 C- C.t"e C C O CC 0% 0"e QC-C .0 C C a> a>0O~c ~ E CC CC't... Pi 'C 'C t e C. 'C e C. t-- Q Q r; CC "e 0 eQa> CC.C. Q o E.-0 4-.- 0 0 CC .0 a> 0 C- Cfl Q C.- C. CC~O CCCC cOC .~i Et t-, CC "e E O CCCCC o 0.0 ~0 ~ 0 ~ia> -00 C."efl Q 0 0 Ca -c' 'C 'C E 6. CC o r; - Q Q r; OC. 0. OC-w C. C. E O o -e t-t- C. O C-.C-~ C 0 O 's, a> - o-' .0 C- C- OC> 0 o~-' ~ a>'-. CC t-O 'C OC C CD C O "e0. CCCC o 0.0+' O-.-~ 0 CC O C~CC O -0 0-4-' CC~ 5 z4 00~ ~0 "e 04~ 0-C--C ~ CCçc C- CC Oc 0 C"e ...~,C Q~ CCC- 0 .4-, Q - '~.0 a> 0C>' O .-. CC0 Q..-. -C-' C t-'- 'C 'C [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .3 1256 "e 4 E ~ r; .ot a> ot t Et t-> O Pi 0 0 C. 'à 5E JUNE 17. 1958 1257 The Budget--Customs Tariff ,44) bo0 00 2 M.0 e.0 0. bcc 00) 04 0.00 Cà) 4) 04 ) 4~4) ~< .CD ~ Z 57071-3-80 1258 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariff E- - ce vD cI c 1 0 ~ ce CI O e 0 0 ee c-r c 20 c eC e ô e cS c 0. 5.à V e ~. ~ c V e v c 4,Ce -, V~ c c c- -0 00C c* CD Ç. c ý cý eý ý c c [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).] JUNE 17, 1958 1259 The Budget--Customs Tariff ci c o C5 0. 0. t, 0 > te t'On ID oj o 0 0. -à 0, 5 0u E . c.a 0 0 - ci. o: o o =e*4l >o Ca 1 0. Z bc~ bc eta0 0 ci c ,0 - Co-.0 0 r '4 : >4 : . k -k 0.. r* o, ce. 0% oo "- .1 * -0 a, -0 ~ O M ' 3 0 "o 0a, -rh - Q m,~ $:~ '9 >, a, . - k :c * e ý ý , ý 4 " ' Cs -c bc M. 8à 0..' :, >O o tot c. * 0 U~ 2.o 0 : -3 E0 "J 0.4> dO r, E O ol E0 vU t ýý %m 14 uû CI ED-0 C - .5 2.0 c 0 0 e cs Qrso ea o.P4.to= 0 CD" a'O 0 ~0 . 00 , "' a, "¼O"O" c c~ "~~ ~"Ê 57071f - 00. .. 03-8W">~~. HOUSE 0F The Budget-Customs Tariff E4E CL Q 0 Q QID -e o6 oo bf *Q-c Q- .- ,z A Q1 e 0 0, Q E c C> -c,0 0Q a Q - CI 0 00- 00 c.-q S4- Q0 0c COMMONS C- CDQc .D CDD ci CD QQ QlQ CD D Q. Q 4, Q4 QD QD Q - Q Q Q. Q QD r-c - Q - : o ogg 4~~- P.,I p;.,) > > a ..:- * a> .as:KO - . a>g a> ec :5.:= 0-9 (o e e.o °ËA 3 :c -0 j , gg 2~C m Q:3 s;: · w .a fr ci r2 r>fr > a :- a> a - .. 0 - 10. k k a>0 2.=2 a> ;; ° a>; a> e -å · t å .o 2 2 2. a> a> a>! aa 3 - 8å s s f; -. .0 .rOC e..- . je. e . - o -0o M o s m ky 44.e-O .- fl .. - -s.1-200.·¤---a j e. a>2 a>tO2~ " . k a .ci o- -. 00 < -ooa> ooS a.~>~>aOdasOa 12 c k~~~ à.. F.4 k o CI, A a~aa CD>.0~ 0 '". ~ a> k 1 1262 HOUSE 0F GOMMONS The Budget--Customs Tariff .2. ~a 0 >a> O C a> a> C) >.- a a>.a a 0 ab cl a>a oaD>.Q >»a ko kr a>a>~ N - a> D ~~041 O0cC a> a> > a>a> a 0-0 a> 5 t3 . bc . a>kkN N2N N N N Ne a>a>~~c a> w.a.a > a>a a>a>~~~ nea r>a >a >a kk k2 k k NNN~ N NN N E~~ :D tj~.> k .bk'> * kV> ~ bc k: rj a> * I>a>>> > E. a>.:acq>.~E~ [Mr. ~ ~ C Flmn kgitn JUNE 17, 1958 1263 The Budget-Customs Tariff c o à CcP 0.0 - ci .àc ot- , ; 1200f c, >e à â HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariff Oc o c> o c> o Oc o Oc .0 c.> Oc> o.- k O- c> Oc t > c r. w tc > o o oo .0 o. k ~-. o c>. .0 Oc, vo Oc> o 0.0 ~ O-c.c o~O c>'.> ko Oc> k c~c> c>-O O~ O.~ O .c.-O .fl -c> " Obfl' Oc> O~$c O-k *~'c> ocO Oc> Oc> O .0 Cc> [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).] JUNE 17, 1958 16 The Budget-Customs Tariff C; C; d 44. CD ýQ o o 4:z o., Il -0- e 0c o> ~. 0 0,4 00.0~ 10 c-R 0 à) >) 57071-3-81 1265 1266 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariff 0 5 > 94- [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .J 1266 JUNE 17, 1958 16 The Budget-Customs Tariiff c, ci~,, ij j3 a, Mk O o, ~M *' k .~ .~ .~ a, k ~ ~ ~, o ~ 0 0 -!i àO <,C 57071-3-81j 1267 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariffi t C H C C C C bfl O CC e o.0 * C L~ ,~Zt t ~ ,o ~g o 's- > e K H:2 C C -& s- C- C C p.4 C Z t ~ _ ~ ~ZH H dL et t ~t ~ cC p.4 CC C - CICI CC-C- [Mr. Fleming (Egllnton) .1 CC CC CC CC JUNE 17, 1959 1269 The Budget-Customs Tariff cc cq ID Cl;C C c c e. e -4 ." k t- t- t- M-0 e. m- tom t- e È) t-- o )o r. m î .2~ E A "«~ Q 's rÔ 0 .12 2 "e à, 0 .5ý r. .m:2 c bd c,~k ~ 0 ~b" C) .--Gz.e ~ ~. 3-~~ *~ ~-ci cd 'O~ ~ ~.e kj inP el Pl >i~4~ .2%c--z. .zE : c, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ç. 'e"O Là ) *4O e~ te: ~ ) c"- HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariff t e o e eo e o e -e t o e a e et t> s- s-t> e ~ C> C) e t> * .,oss-c, ewe~ oe -cet* . t-, t-c * e - -* ~>5.~s~t>eC* et,> C> e-c ? e5 -.-- > s C ;, t>->?- ~> e ~ 5- .0 s- t- e.~ ~>C> c> t> e * t-t>. -~ s. c>.>-,>5 -,>0 c,> t- -> -t> fr.~ t> .0 t>t>Cs t>,>r' e -..- ~-e >c> [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).] c> o o Fs-s c~Fe 4 ~ ~ e .Ç~ ~t t~Fe p-s b" c,- .~ ~- -c e -c t> OS Cc "5 c> t-' ~~5>*. --- e et Ct> e e t-~ -~ O -~ ~ct k t> C> c ~ ->5- JUNE 17. 1958 The Budget-Customs Tariff o; C; c cý c; * . .0 Q Q Q. o * .0. ~0 Q Q ~ ~. ~ tQs.. s,~ s.. ~ Q j c; o 0.0. j. j. 50 50 ~ 50 '- 0- m 0) "z$= =4 ;î4 ý. "4 e5 C 0 -C) ta .0.> M ECs-n -- C >0 t4-> E 0$4 $4 .0 0) -+4 "e 50 00)» O $4E$4 t.- o C) "~ E-~ - 0.0 ->-> $4.> C.> O >0 a,> e 0>0> Ce >0» n a 044 420 ce o. 4.4) WS C e >0 >0>0» ~>0 ~>0> >0 E e-e~ C..> >0 0-e t o >0 >0 ~ o C - >0-c r-C - ">0-4-c -4.4>0 ~ ~>0 >0 >0 C C E-o >0>%C ">0~~ t >0 >0.~ >0 ~ >0 ">0 >0ac 1274 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Customs Tariff t E-E eC C) C, W-C 2!ý 00 *..020 [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).] JUNE 17, 1959 O . . .0 * 00<~ C> a, C. C. a, - C.C.C. C. C. C>a, *aC a, *0 C C.aCC. a, a, C.a,~C. F~a Phe Budget--Customs Tariff 0 r- C> 4)m, . a e . e . ea, a, oa, C> a, e C.a, -a, C. a, k .~tk C. ~tk C> . C> CC, C> a, ~. e>.. .C. e C.C.C. .~t, C. k t-c.oct-.a~ * C C C>*C. C. ~t, C. c t- c C . > 0 oaC> > C a,4 Q a o,. P04 9-i Qt, -1CD C. C. e . e a, e a, e:~ ~C C. e . c>ce c> a, a, e~CC.~ ~ t-~~aC ~ C . . *0 ~C>~ CC C.C.C. C. t- O C C t- aC - C.C. O O oe n t 0 n0 -> .o - - D0 etu e os E, e*~ ~ e eCCC 0.0 ~> ok O .~ e eee C.C e 4> - - e keO .00 e O e- OeeoC) *~ t Cee e 4> 0 C .0 C>>, t, e4 >e.0 e C CkC> o C 4> to >,e e .0ke 0~- -. 4> O Ct, .0 "I s. r~ 0 il4 t,.r çà. e 0 a E Ca C ~Ea 0 a ka, C.C a e t, '.0 - C.->1 C. t, .a .~ 0 C.. ~ k 4> C e ca t- 1276 ee O -e -t-- ~ O eC Cc c-t, c s ~ r-, c e-c-' t c HOUSE 0F COMMONS TariffThe Budget-Customs C >. - . PLI -. - - Pl ee. c-.) O e. C'> O e. c--> c-.) e e e e ~e.e.e. C-t c-.) C'> c--> O - - - 't, - -C .0 C."' e .0 CM e.0 OC CL O t. '-O OC Cc ~r -t-- c, -t-t c C,-, t, 'e o Ce, Oe C-t C'> CC;e.e. -e 'e .0 - C. e -e C.. - C..) e > _ e. e. C-, ~ e.) C-> C-t- ~ CCC t. et, E.E- c t-, t-> e OCe tC'~ C> ~s ~C O -t-t e.~ C C -t, C- -cec-- e. C- s--.- C s-CC Ot, c ,.- e~t-0 -~ ~e-e CCC~ c 0.0 -e e e. e. o o - c-.) e e e e. t- o e t-, o e e e. e. o o - c-.) ee e. t-. o r-.) - e -e - e. e O t-t .0 e e.. 5: -e C e e e5 e.~,e. '-t---- e- e ~ O.- o-.- e e e e e e e. e. e. e. e. e. 'e te o o o o C-t - C-t c-a c--> - ee. e. e. e. e. e te e e e e e ee. e. e. e. e. e te e. e. e. e. e. e. te te o o o o c-, c-, C't - ece ee ee. e. e. e. e. e te 'r-t O O O e e e e e ee. e. e. e. e. e o te o o o e ee e e e e e r-, rc., [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton)j. JUNE 17, 1958 1277 The Budget--Customs Tariff 10 '00 04- o, .a4 0 OM 'C 0 -Z14 0. C 2,0 > 0 00 4~ 0 0 000 0, 0 0o 0 .tPO. 0 V0 O .0 .20 4O 9 0 0. 1278 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Benidickson Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy prove to be the deficit we would normally River): Mr. Speaker, last evening when the have under our accounting system. I do leader of the house gave us some indication know that probably the most responsible out- that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) side organization which looks at these things would not be brief tonight, one of my neigh- very carefully, the Canada tax foundation, bours-I must say, not on my immediate left estimated that the budget figures would prob- -said: Well, he probably will need a lot of ably establish a deficit of $1 billion. But the time to explain the bad things away. And I writer of this editorial did say that the think we have certainly found that out. Minister of Finance-and I quote the words The minister tonight used a lot of pages, used-"may be able to hide some of this and be got into a lot of economic gobbledy- amount by certain accounting adjustments." gook- I expect that when we do examine the min- Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. ister's speech in Hansard more carefully tomorrow we will be able to find, looking Mr. Benidickson: -to explain to us about at some of these so-called suspect items, these affairs, but I think that was in a large some figuring in past style different from the measure due to the fact that the minister figuring he has produced I am sure the deficit has learned that he gets into a fair amount of will be larger. trouble when he is too dogmatie and, perhaps, I myseif, in the estimates commîttee the because we can certalnly think of some of other day, asked whether or not there was the more prominent things he has said in going to be a raid on the defence equipment recent times of that nature of which, no fund, and it will be very interestîng tomorrow doubt, he would not like to be reminded at to find out whether the figures with regard this moment. For example, there was his to loam and investments will prove my sus- reference to inflation, when he said just about picion to be well founded. a month before last Christmas down in In addition to this, the bouse did not get Florida to United States investors: "I con- the story with regard to spending. We did fidently tell you that inflation has been not hear a word tonight about dominion- checked." Again, in his last budget speech provincial relations; there was not a sugges- from the opposition side in a very terse and tion that if certain wishes o! Premier Frost dogmatic statement, he stated very positively "we wish to see a balanced budget because we aegigt eflildi h erftr believe in bala ba lacudgets." udge be a s another $78 million will be required, and if funny in relation budget tht additional payments are to be made in this funn inreltio tothisbudet nnibt. direction we would anticipate that probably I have tried to find things which would another $150 million beyond wbat we have make it possible for me to extend some words beard, would be involved in equalization of congratulations to the hon. gentleman, but payments. the nature of his budget does not make that We have heard nothing about the estimate very easy. Perhaps I can say, however, that o! the cost of the federal share of national he has at least introduced some harmony bospitalization, arrangements for wbicb would tonight with the blue box in front of him, be implemented witbin a couple o! weeks- and the blue carnation and the blue haber- dashery. And we certainly have a blue Mr Fleming (Eglinton): 0f course you did. budget. I think we have more than a blue An han. Menber: Were you not listening budget; we have a sick budget, and I am to the speech? afraid that most people among the public after hearing about it will agree that the Mr. Benidickson: Reference was made te minister himself offered very little anti-reces- the old age pension deficit but, of course, this sion medicine with his sick budget. bouse was not informed that it is estimated thnt the old age pension deficit for the year The minister could, I suppose, be con- to wbicb the minister was referring will not gratulated for having established some be $102 million as mentioned in the speech records. The size of the deficit is, of course, tonigbt but will, doubtless, be about double an all-time record in peace time, and the that. amount of his spending is an all-time record. But there is one thing with regard to which An han. Member: He said that. he has not established a record as a Con- Mr. Benidickson: But my chief criticism o! servative finance minister, because since 1913 the budget, as I said at the beginning, Mr. a Conservative government has never in- Speaker, is that there is little anti-recession troduced a budget with a surplus. medicine in it. It is a deficit budget, o! Now it will take a little while to examine course, but it is prominently a deficient bud- the very complicated figures which the min- get. I suggest that it lacks quick economie ister gave to us tonight in order to make sure stimulants and the disappointment is that whether even his deficit of $640 million will not only does it lack push, it will pusb a lot hMr. Fleming oEglinton).] of business thinking in the wrong direction. In other words, just like Topsy, this was not a planned or an economic, designed budget- it just "growed". We have a deficit not by design but a deficit by default and one might say that the promises of yesterday have become the deficits of today. There is nothing new in the terms of this budget for jobs and there is less for business. It has been a plecemeal economic attitude that has been developed by the Minister of Finance and we can say now with great con- fidence and satisfaction that we certainly were right last session when we told the Minister of Finance that he should bring down a budget, that we should have a white paper Sa that the economics of the situation in the light of new events could have been most carefully examined not anly by the minister but on a formai basis, as always takes place at budget time, in the presence of the officiais whomn he very pramptly com- plimented tonight. At this point may I, too, associate uiyself with the minister in saying that I have enjoyed not only the friendship but several years of close association with Doctor Eaton who has a long-termn record of service to this country in the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue. I join with the minister in wishing Doctor Eaton well in his new employment. My analysis of what is lacking in this budget is that the government is simply sitting out the situation and sitting it out on its hands. An eminent United States econ- amist, Senator Douglas, made an interesting commuent with respect ta remedies that should properly be applied in the recession in that country which I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance: It is better ta do too much than to do too littie and then do it toa late. Mr. Baskin: You should know ail about doing too little taa late. Mr. Benidickson: I cannot resist comment- ing that even if my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, had done samnething tonight it would be taa late. Evidence of the fact that the minister and those associated with hlm have been taa late in coming ta grips with what has needed to be done is t *hat, accord- ing to their speeches, they did not; recognize the nature of the problem. that had been fac- ing us last winter and last faîl. There was no bald new program. then and there is not any bold new programn now. It is a wait and see, a slow motion budget and I suggest ta the minister that because he will have ta do things eventually we are asking why he is not doing them now. The Budget-Mr. Benidickson An hon. Membor: Maybe he learned fromn your experience. Mr. Benidickson: It is flot much of a budget, my friend. There is littie for anybody ini this budget. Mr. Baskin: There is very littie in your reply to it. Mr. Benidickson: The budget contains very littie for the Canadian people except cheaper rat poison, violins, cut flowers and tree guards flot more than 36 inches in height, as I noted some of the points made by the minister tonight. We have heard something about changes ini tariffs. We wiil have an opportunity of dis- cussing these matters in more detail at a later date but 1 want to say one thing at this time. Everybody knows that British appetites were whetted by the eloquence of the Prime Min- ister (Mr. Diefenbaker) with respect to trade just as Canadian appetites were whetted by the ta]k we heard about tax reductions. Just before the Mont Tremblant conference cold water was thrown on certain tariff items that affect the British and I suggest that quite a chiil has been cast tonight on the common- wealth conference that is about to take place. Ail of this is very inconsistent; with some of the philosophies of the Prime Minister. At Brantford, Ontario, on February 17, 1958, the Prime Minister had this to say: The purpose of the commnonwealth canference la to capture markets that have been lost. Let us give the British an opportunity for trade ili Canada and assure them the necessary Canadian dollars to buy oui praducts because trade must be in bath directions. Again I say that appetites that were whetted by the Prime Minister here wiil certainly be disappointed. I recail that toward the end of the last session,' on January 20, 1958, as recorded at page 3523 of Hansard, the Prime Minister in some cross questioning about what tax reductions the Canadian people might expect said: We have reduced taxes- The foJlowing exchange then took place between the Prime Minister and the then hon. member for Coast-Capilano, Mr. Sinclair: Mr. Sinclair: How much? Mr. Diefenbaker: They say how much. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Sinclair: You promised $500 million. Mr. Diefenbaker: When we have the authorlty we shall do so. What governmnent had more authority to carry out promises to the people than that which the government has at the present lime? As I have the right to continue this speech on Friday-I believe that is the date, may I adjourn the debate. On motion of Mr. Benidickson the debate was adjourned. JUNE 17, 1958 1279 1280 HOUSE OF Coulapse of Second Narrows Bridge BRIDGES SECOND NARROWS, vANCOUVER-COLLAPSE OF TWO SECTIONS Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourns I think I should make reference to the catastrophe that has taken place in British Columbia when two sections of the second narrows bridge in Vancouver col- lapsed this evening with a loss of life, and to say that all of us in this house extend our sympathy to their loved ones who survive and our deep regret at what has taken place. Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those in this party I wish to associate ourselves with the Prime Minister's expression of shock and regret at this very sad news. Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words to those already spoken. This touches me very deeply because the bridge is located in my constituency and I together with others have been looking forward to the opening of this bridge in the very near future. It is one of those occasions when one can hardly find words to express one's feelings. All I can COMMONS do is to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in hoping that our thoughts will be understood by those who survive. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Chevrier: May I ask the government leader what the business of the house is for tomorrow? Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with the second reading of the bill to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which is item No. 11 on today's order paper; then continue the debate on the resolution concerning the De- partment of Transport Act, which is item No. 7; then take item No. 9, the resolution concerning the Cape Breton Highlands na- tional park; and item No. 12, the resolution relating to the Yukon Act. If there is any time left after that we shall take item No. 3, second reading of the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, and item No. 4, the second reading of the bill to incorporate the lake- head harbour commissioners. It being 23 minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pur- suant to standing order. JUNE 17. 1958 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The foliowing answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the officiai report of debates pursuant to standing order 39: CARGO-PASSENGER vESSEL, WEST INDIES SERVICE Question No. 2-Mr. Chevrier: 1. Have plans and specifications been prepared for the construction of the new cargo-passenger vessel to serve the West Indies federation? 2. If so, what will the ship cost? 3. Will tenders be called for its construction? 4. When will it be completed? 5. What islands of the federation will It serve? 6. To whomn wül the ship be entrusted for operation? 7. Has a report been prepared on the economica of this service? 8. What will be the cost of operatlng the shlp? 9. What will be the amount of the annual deficit? 10. What will be the total cost to Canada, capital and operation. of this aid to the federation? 11. What trade will be promoted between the two countries by this ship? Answer by: Han. Sidney E. Smith 97Dces - Amount Fer cent Amount Fer cent Amount Fer oent Tsi revenues- Income tax- Personal (1) ............... 1,499.2 29.7 1,400.5 27.4 98.7 7.0 Corporation (1) ............. 1,234.8 24.5 1,268.3 24.8 -33.5 -2.6 On dividende, interest, etc., going abroad .......................... 64.3 1.3 76.4 1.5 -12.1 -15.8 Excise taxes- Sales (1) .......................... 703.2 14.0 717.1 -14.0 -13.9 -1.9 Other ........................... 249.4 4.9 267.1 5.2 -17.7 -6.6 Customs import duties ............... 498.1 9.9 549.1 10.8 -51.0 -9.3 Excise duties ........................ 300.1 5.9 271.4 5.3 28.7 10.6 Succession duties..................... 71.6 1.4 79.7 1.6 - 8.1 -10.2 Other taxes.......................... 1.5............ 18.3 0.4 -16.8 -91.8 4,655.2 91.6 4,647.9 91.0 -55.7 -0.6 Non-tsi revenues- Return oniÎnvestments ............... 169.5 3.4 206.6 4.0 -37.1 -18.0Post office......................... 152.9 3.0 145.8 2.9 7.1 4.9Other non-tsi revenues ............... 102.5 2.0 106.2 2.1 - 3.7 -3.5 454.9 8.4 458.6 9.0 -33.7 -7.8 Total revenues ................ 5,047.1 100.0 5.106.5 100.0 -59.4 -1.2 1957-58 1956&57 (') Excluding tax credited to the old age security fund- 2% personal income tai ..................................... 135.0 125.0 2% corporation income tax .................................. 60.7 67.3 2% sales tax .............................................. 175.8 179.3 371.5 371.6 ()TAX REVENUES Taz on personal incarnes The personal income tax in 1957-58 was again the largest source of govern- ment revenue. The yield for the year (excluding the old age security tax) was $1,499 million. This was $99 million, or 7 per cent more than in the previous year. This increase was due to the rise in the total of personal incomes that took place in 1957. The Budget-A ppendix BUDGETARY REVENUES SY SOURCE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MILLIONS Or DOLLARS 6000 FISCAL YEARS ENDEO MAROR 3i b000 5wo 'C"' OTHER REVENUES50 -------- -- TOTAL REVENUE FROM TAXES. 92 14 - % CUSTOMS IMPORT DUTIES 4000-------- _ 4000 EXCISE DUTIES, SALES AND 2 5%ý OTHER EXCISE TAXES 3000000 25 CORPORATION INCOME TAX' 2000v' -2000 1000'-~ y PERSONAL INCOME TAS 00 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 t957 1958. 1956, 1 INCLUDES EXCESS PROFITS 5*9 FOR TRE YEARS 1951 ANS I152 .PRELIMINARty Ia addition the 2 per cent tax on person il incomes levied under the Old Age Security Act totalled $135 million during 1957-58 compared witli $125 million in 1956-57. The maximum tax is $60 per person. This revenue was creditcd to the old age sedurity fund. Corporation incomie lax Corporation income tax w'as the second largest revenue producer in 1957-58. Collections (excluding the old age securitY tax) were $1,235 million, a decrease of $33 million fromn the previous year. This decrease was duc to lowcr profits in 1957 and the re-entry of the Province of Ontario into the corporation income tax field. Thlese inifluiences were offset in part by substantial receipts early in the ycar on account of high 1956 profits. In addition the 2 per cent tax on income of corporations under the Old Age Security Act yielded $61 million during 1957-58 compared with $67 million collected from this source in 1956-57. These collections were credited to the old age security fund. Taxres on interest, div idends, rents and royalties qoing abroad Revenue under this heading is derived from taxes withheld on payments of interest, dividends, rents, royalties, alimony and income from estates and trusts made to non-residents. The total of $64 million for 1957-58 was $12 million less thani in the previous year reflecting lower corporate profits in 1957 and the fact that rcfunds adjusting overpayments in previous years were larger than usual. Excise taxes Included under this heading are the revenues from the general sales tax and the special excise taxes levied on a wide range of manufactured products. Total net collections for the vear were $953 million a decrease of $32 million or 3 per cent from 1956-57. HOUSE OF COMMONS1326 The Budget-A ppendix The sales tax, which from a revenue standpoint is the most important tax levied under the Excise Tax Act, yielded a net revenue of $703 million in the year (excluding the 2 per cent old age security sales tax). This was $14 million or 2 per cent less than in the previous year reflecting the changes announced in the Mardi 1957 Budget which exempted a number of commodîties from this tax. Excise taxes other than the general sales tax yielded approximately $250 million, or $18 million less than in 1956-57. This decrease was due mainly to tax changes. The repeal of the tax on candy and chewing gum in Mardi 1957 resulted in a reduction of revenue for the year of $9 million and the repeal of the tax on soft drinks at the same time reduced revenue by $8 million. The reduction in the tax on automobiles from 10 per cent to 7' per cent on December 6, 1957, resulted in revenue from this source declining $7 million. In addition lower sales of television sets caused the revenue from the tax on this item to decline by $2 million. These declines were partly offset by an increase of $10 million from the taxes on tobacco products. The revenues from the taxes on jewellery, matches, lighters, toilet preparations, wines and sundry commodities showed little change from the previous year. The 2 per cent tax on sales levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund yielded $176 million in 1957-58 compared with $179 million in the previous year. Customs import duties Revenue fromn customs import duties was $498 million, a decrease of $51 million or 9 per cent fromn 1956-57. This decrease in revenue reflected the decrease in the volume and value of imports during the year. PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF TAX REVENUES MILLIONS Or DOLLARS FISCAL YEARS ENDED MARCH 31 MILLIONS 0F DOLLARS 1500- PERSONAL iZFXW TAS 1500 1500 COePORATO INCONE TAXI 1500 90900 900- 900 60ý600 600 600 195, sa 53 SA 55 56 57 S6195, 52 53 54 55 se 57 M5 - 1200 EXCISE TAXES 120 60CSOA UIS600 90 m 900 300 300 5o fl600 0 1551 525 4SS5 7s 30300 30 ilZiiXZZi~ 300 1951 52 $3 54 55 se 57 M. 1951 52 53 54 55 se 57 -PRELIM INA RY JUNE 17, 1958 1327 8 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-A ppendix Excise dulies Excise duties are levied exclusively on alcoholie beverages and tobacco products. (Additional taxes on tobacco products are levied under the Excise Tax Act referred to above.) The revenue fromn excise duties for the year was $300 million, an increase of $29 million or il per cent over the previous year. The collections from the taxes on alcoholie beverages, before deducting refunds, were $172 million, an increase of $18 million over the previous year. The gross receipts fromn the taxes on tobacco products amounted to $132 million, an increase of $11 million. Succession dulies Revenue from succession duties totalled $72 million in 1957-58, a decrease of $8 million from the previous year. The revenue from this source for the year as well as for the previous year was substantially affected by collections from two unusually large estates. Other taxes The principal source of revenue under this heading in the previous year was the tax on the premium income of insurance companies amounting to $17 million. ln 1957-58 the federal government withdrew from the premium tax field in favour of the provinces. Small amounts of revenue were receîved from the special taxes on the export of electrical energy from Canada and the tax on the export of furs froma the Northwest Territories. (2) NON-TAX REVENUES Non-tax revenues for 1957-58 amounted to $425 million, $34 million less than the 1956-57 total of $459 million. The following table presents a com- parative summary of these revenues for the two fiscal years by principal classification: TABLE 4 (ini millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended Increase or No-A EEUSMarch 31 Decrease (-) 1958 97 Aont Prcn (Preliminary) 15 mut Frcn Return on investments ...................... 169.5 206.6 -37.1 -18.0 Post office................................ 152.9 145.8 7.1 4.9 Privileges, licences and permits.............. 19.3 18.0 1.3 7.2 Proceeds from sales......................... 22.1 28.8 - 6.7 -23.3 Premnium, discount and exchange.............. 1.4 ....... 1.4 100.0 Refunds of previous years'expenditures. .. 27.2 27.8 -0.6 - 2.2 Services and service fees..................... 22.4 22.0 0.4 1.8 Bullion and coinage.......................... 5.0 4.1 0.9 22.0 Other .................................... 5.1 5.5 - 0.4 - 7.3 424.9 458.6 -33.7 - 7.3 Relurn on investments Return on investments amounted to $170 million in 1957-58 or $37 million less than the yield of $207 million in 1956-57. The Budget-Appendix Payments from Crown corporations were $114 million or $39 million less than similar payments of $153 million received in 1956-57. A large part of this decrease was due to receipts from the Bank of Canada and reflects an increase of $21 million in the Bank's profits transferred to the Receiver General for 1957 over those for 1956 more than offset by the non-recurring payment of $43 million in 1956 on inner investment reserves set aside out of past years' profits, which were no longer required when the Bank adopted amortized values as the basis for valuing its holdings of securities. Most of the remainder of the decrease was due to a reduction of $18 million in receipts from the Canadian National Railways, as there were no profits of the Company in 1957 to be transferred to the Receiver General. Receipts from other loans and investments were $55 million, or $2 million more than similar receipts in 1956-57. Increases of $6 million in exchange fund profits and $1 million in sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt were nearly offset by decreases of $3 million in the earnings of the securities investment account, $1 million in receipts from interest-bearing balances with chartered banks and $1 million in interest payments from other national governments. A comparative summary of the receipts for 1957-58 and the previous year is given in the following table: TABLE 5 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase RETURN ON INVESTMENTS or 1958 1957 Decrease (-) (Preliminary) Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations- Bank of Canada- Profits............................................. 68.7 47.3 21.4 Inner investment reserves.......................... .............. 42.6 -42.6 Canadian Arsenals...................................... .............. 0.9 - 0.9 Canadian Farm Loan Board............................ 1.6 1.6 .............. Canadian National Railways........................... 12.5 30.8 -18.3 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation............... 18.2 17.5 0.7 Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited................. 3.5 ............. 3.5 National Harbours Board.............................. 3.4 3.2 0.2 Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation......... 0.6 0.9 -0.3 Polymer Corporation Limited.......................... 4.0 6.0 -2.0 M iscellaneous.......................................... 1.6 2.4 -0.8 114.1 153.2 -89.1 Other loans and investments- United Kingdom....................................... 0.4 0.4 Other national governments............................ 9.7 10.3 -0.6 Provincial governments................................ 0.9 1.0 -0.1 Soldier and general land settlement loans and Veterans Land Act advances................................. 5.0 4.8 0.2 Exchange fund account................................. 22.9 17.4 5.5 Securities investment account........ .... 1.7 5.2 -3.5 Sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt................................. 5.8 5.0 0.8 Interest-bearing balances with chartered banks......... 5.3 6.3 -1.0 M iscellaneous.......................................... 3.7 3.4 0.3 55.4 53.4 2.0 169.5 206.6 -37.1 57071-3-85 1329JUNE 17, 1958 0 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix Post Office Net post office receipts credited to budgetary revenues in 1957-58 totalled $153 million or $7 million more than in 1956-57. Gross receipts were $177 million but authorized disbursements from revenues for salaries and rent allow- ances at semi-staff and revenue offices, commissions at sub-offices, transit charges on Canadian mail forwarded through or delivered in foreign countries, etc., amounted to $24 million. Last year, gross receipts amounted to $168 million and authorized disbursements totalled $22 million. As costs of operating the post office during 1957-58 (excluding the $24 million charged to revenues) were $153 million, net costs and net revenue were the same for 1957-58. However, in making this comparison, it is to be noted that the total shown for post office revenue does not reflect any payment for the franking privilege covering parliamentary and departmental mail or for certain miscellaneous services provided for other government departments and agencies, nor does the total shown for operating expenses reflect any charges for premises occupied by the Post Office Department or for certain accounting and miscel- laneous services provided by other departments. Privileges, licences and permits Revenues of $19 million were received during the fiscal year on account of privileges, licences and permits compared with $18 million received last year. Included in the total for the current fiscal year was approximately $8 million for collections by the Department of Transport, mainly on account of aircraft landing fees, rentals of hangar accommodation, and other miscellaneous rental charges. Proceeds from sales Receipts from proceeds from sales were $22 million for 1957-58 or about $7 million less than the total received in 1956-57. This amount included $7 million from Crown Assets Disposal Corporation representing amounts realized from the disposal of surplus Crown assets (after deducting certain agency fees and transfers), $4 million under agreements of sale, and $5 million from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation representing the proceeds from the sale of wartime housing properties, including depreciation provisions set aside by the Corporation in previous years on properties that have now been sold. Premium, discount and exchange Premium, discount and exchange transactions in the current fiscal year resulted in a net credit of $1 million to revenues compared with a net charge of $1 million to expenditures in the previous fiscal year. Refunds of previous years' expenditures Refunds in the current fiscal year of expenditures made in prior years totalled $27 million compared with $28 million received last year. A large part of these refunds arose from previous years' expenditures by the Department of National Defence on contracts with the United States Government for the supply of engines, aircraft and other defence equipment. The arrangement is that when Canada places contracts with the Government of the United States, payments of the estimated costs are made to the United States Treasury. If these esti- The Budget-Appendix mated costs are revised, or if there are reductions in the contracts, the United States Government refunds the overpayments. Refunds -arising from this source totalled $14 million in 1957-58; in 1956-57 the total was $7 million. Services and service fees Sums totalling $22 million were collected during 1957-58 by various govern- ment departments for services and service fees, about the same as the amounts collected during 1956-57. The total of $22 million included $6 million received by the Department of Trade and Commerce, mainly for services in connection with the inspection, weighing, storage and elevation of grain and for electricity, gas and weights and measures inspection services; $7 million received by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, mainly for police services to provinces and municipalities; and $3 million received by the Department of Transport, chiefly for wharfage and other canal and marine service fees, steamship inspection, air- ground radio at airports, and government telegraph and telephone services. Bullion and coinage Revenue under this heading arose out of the operations of the Royal Canadian Mint and included assaying, refining and handling charges and the net gain on coinage and refining operations. The amount credited to bullion and coinage revenue for 1957-58 was $5 million, $1 million more than in the previous year. Other non-tax revenues Other non-tax revenues amounted to $5 million, about the same as was received in 1956-57. (3) COMPARISON OF ACTUAL REVENUE WITH FORECAST The forecast of revenues for 1957-58 made in the Budget Speech of March 14, 1957, was modified by tax changes announced in the Financial Statement made on December 6, 1957. In this Financial Statement the Minister of Finance stated that it was expected, on the basis of eight months collections, that revenues for the year from some sources would exceed the amount forecast in the March Budget Speech while other revenues would fall below this forecast but in total the revenue for the year would fall below the forecast in March only by the amount attributable to the tax reductions announced in the Financial Statement. Revenue collections up to the end of the calendar year were quite close to expectations, but during the final quarter of the fiscal year they began to reflect more markedly the effects of the recession. This, together with the fact that during the final quarter refunds of previous overpayments of tax were higher than expected, resulted in total budgetary revenues being $97 million, or about 2 per cent, less than the December forecast. Although revenues from several sources exceeded the forecast by small amounts these were more than offset by the amount by which revenues from customs duties, personal and non-resident income tax and sales tax fell below the forecast. The following table shows the extent to which revenues for 1957-58 differ from the forecast for the year as modified by the December Financial Statement: 57071-3-85' JUNE 17, 1958 1331. The Budget-A ppendix TABLE 6 CompAaisoN oit FORECAST5 WITH AcTUAL REVENUx5 FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCS 31, 1958 (in millions of dollars) Revenue Forecasts Increase or Decrease(- Actual compared with SOUiRCE op REvEN-uES Mar. 14, Dec. 6, 1957 Revenues Dec. 6, 1957 Forecast 1957 Financial (Preliminary) Budget Statement Amount Per cent Personal income tax ................. 1,560.0 1,543.0 1,499.2 -43.8 - 2.8 Non-resident income tax ............... 80.0 80.0 64.3 -15.7 -19.6 Corporation income tax .............. 1,200.0 1,199.0 1,234.8 35.8 3.0 Succession duties ..................... 59.4 59.4 71.6 12.2 20.5 Customs import duties ................ 590.0 590.0 498.1 -91.9 -15.6 Sales tax (net)....................... 751.4 751.4 703.2 -48.2 - 6.4 Excise duties and excise taxes other than sales tax...................... 537.2 529.2 549.5 20.3 3.8 Miscellaneous taxes .................... 2.0 2.0 1.5 - 0.5 -25.0 Total tax revenues ............... 4,780.0 4,754.0 4,622.2 -131.8 - 2.8 Non-tax revenues.................... 390.0 390.0 424.9 34.9 8.9 Total budgetary revenues. ........ 5,170.0 5,144.0 5,047.1 -96.9 - 1.9 The revenue from the personal income tax was $44 million below forecast. This occurred because the extra collections in January based on year-end bonuses were below expectations and the level of taxable personal incomes in the final four months of the fiscal year declined more than was foreseen. The revenue from the tax on income going to non-residents feli below the forecast because dividend payments going abroad were not as higli as expected and because some large refunds had to be made toward the end of the year to adjust overpayments of tax in previous years. The revenue from the corporation income tax exceeded the forecast despite the fact that corporation profits for the year were not as high as expected. This occurred because the payments made in the year to complete payment of taxes due on higli 1956 profits were substantially in excess of what was anticipatcd. The revenue from succession duties lias been substantially infiuenced in the last three years by duties payable on two exceptionally large estates and actual revenues in each year have varied from the forecasts because of the difficulty of foreseeing exactly when the duties on these estates would be paid. The revenue from customs duties was $92 million less than forecast. The decline in imports appears to have been more pronounced in commodities bearing higher rates of duty than in those coming in free of duty or at the lower rates. The extent to which the revenue from the sales tax fell below the f orecast is a refiection of the extent to which commodity sales feIl below expectations. Revenues from excise duties and other excise taxes exceeded the forecast largely because sales of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products showed a greater buoyancy than expected. Non-tax revenues were $35 million above the forecast. A large part of this was due to larger than expected Bank of Canada profits. B. EXPENDITURES Budgetary expenditures for 1957-58 amounted to $5,086 million, an increase of $237 million over the 1956-57 total of $4,849 million. 1332 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix A comparative summary of expenditures by departments and principal purposes for the fiscal year 1957-58 and the preceding year is given in the following table: TABLE 7 STÂ¶umExT oir BuDaETAity ExpEcNDrritURS iBT DxPARiTmyNT AND MÀJnR CLA5ssmeATnos (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase or 1958197Dres (Preliminary)157Dces(- Amount Per cent Amount Per Cent Amount Per Cent National Defence .................... 1,668.5 32.8 1,759.4 36.3 -90.9 -5.2 Defence Production..................... 14.9 0.3 20.5 0.4 -5.6 -27.3 Civil defence........................... 4.0 0.1 3.7 0.1 0.3 8.1 1,687.4 38.2 1,788.6 36.8 -96.2 -6.4 Public debt charges- Interest on publiecdebt................ 539.3 10.6 520.2 10.7 19.1 3.7 Other debt charges................... 27.8 0.6 13.9 0.3 13.9 100.0 $67.1 11.2 534.1 11.0 83.0 6.2 Provincial subsidies and tax-sharing payments (including transitional grant to Newfoundland).................... 382.7 7.5 395.4 8.2 -12.7 -3.2 Provision for reserve for losses on realization of assets................... .......... ...... .50.0 1.0 -50.0 -100.0 Family allowances ..................... 437.9 à6 397.5 8.2 40.4 10.2 Unemployment Insurance Act-admin- istration and goVernment's contri-I bution ...................... 03 14 6. . Government contributions 70.3 r.e6.spect~9 5~ to the superannuation account ........... 78.1 1.5 72.4 1.5 .5.7 7.9 Provision for actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account ............. .......... .......... 50.0 1.0 -50.0 -100.ù Agriculture........................... 94.7 1.9 84.6 1.7 10.1 11.9 Atomic Energy ............. 21.6 0.4 21.9 0.5 -0.3 -0.1 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . 43.0 0.9 39.3 0.8 3.7 9.4 Citizenship and Immigration ............. 52.4 1.0 44.5 0.9 7.9 17.8 External Affairs........................ 60.2 1.2 60.2 1.2 ......... Finance ............................. 158.9 3.1 50.9 1.0 108.0 212.2 Mines and Technical Surveys........... 36.1 0.7 35.9 0.7 0.2 0.6 National Health and Welfare........... 221.1 4.3 160.5 3.3 60.6 37.8 National Researcli Coundil............. 21.6 0.4 19.0 0.4 2.6 13.7 National Revenue...................... 67.7 1.3 61.8 1.3 5.9 9.5 Northern Affairs and National Resources ........................... 48.6 1.0 37.0 0.8 11.6 31.4 Post Office........................... 153.3 3.0 140.0 2.9 13.3 9.5 Public Works......................... 206.0 4.1 165.3 3.4 40.7 24.6 Royal Canadian Mounted Police .......... 47.4 0.9 43.4 0.9 4.0 9.2 Trade and Commerce .................. 57.0 1.1 55.4 1.1 1.6 2.9 Transport............................ 206.8 4.1 158.2 3.3 48.6 30.7 Veterans Affaires....................... 276.7 5.4 251.5 5.2 25.2 10.0 Other departments..................... 89.9 1.8 70.2 1.5 19.7 28.0 Grand total ............... 5,086.5 100.0 4,849.0 100.0 237.5 4.9 Defence expenditures Defence expenditures consisting of expenditures of the Departments of National Defence and Defence Production and outlay for the civil defence programme were again the Iargest category of government expenditure. The total of $1,687 million for the fiscal year was approximately 33 per cent of the aggregate budgetary expenditures of the government. This is a decrease of $96 million or about 5 per cent less than the 1950-57 total of $ 1,784 million when defence expenditures were 37 per cent of aggregate budgetary expenditures. 1333JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix Expenditures of the Department of National Defence aniounted to $1,668 million and those of the Department of Defence Productioni to $15 million, while outlays in connection with the civil defence programme were $4 million. In 1956-57 expenditures were $1,759 million, $21 million and $4 million, respec- tively. PRINCIPAL CLASSES OF BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FISCAL YEARS ENOCO MARCH 3Y MILLIONSOr_ DOLLAR... Defence research and development ................ Mutual aid to, NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of NATO ............... Government contribution to the permanent services pension account............................... Administration and general ........................ Department of Defence Production- Capital assistance................................. Administration and general ........................ Civil defence programme.............................. Fiscal Year Ended March 31 1958 15 (Preliminary) 15 378.6 388.7 262.7 326.7 760.0 775.0 1,401.3 1,,490.4/ 78.7 69.3 118.4 133.6 49.7 46.3 20.4 19.8 1,668.5 1,759.4 4.7 10.0 10.2 10.5 14.9 20.5 4.0 3.7 1,687.4 1,783.6 -Increase or Decrease(- -10.1 - 64.0 -15.0 - 89.1i 9.4 -15.2 3.4 0.6 -90.9 -5.3 -0.3 -5.6 0.3 -96.2 1334 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix Expenditures for army, naval and air services amounted in the aggregate to $1,401 million, $89 million less than the total for 1956-57. Outlay in 1957-58 was less than in the previous year by $10 million for army services, $64 million for naval services and $15 million for air services. Expenditures for defence research and development were $79 million, an increase of $9 million over the 1956-57 programme. Expenditures of $118 million under the mutual aid programme and con- tributions to the military costs of NATO were $15 million less than in the previous fiscal year. Under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appro- priation Act, defence equipment and supplies may be transferred from Canadian stocks to other parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. The expenditures of $118 million for 1957-58 included $78 million for the transfer of equipment and supplies, and $30 million for costs incurred in acquiring and supplying military equipment for, and in the training in Canada of aircrews from, countries which are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. The contribution of $10 million on account of Canada's share of the NATO military budgets and infrastructure costs which was also included in this total was $4 million less than in 1956-57. The percentage share of these costs to be borne by each nation is established in the North Atlantic Council and is subject to ratification by the respective member governments. The government's contribution to the permanent services pension account during 1957-58 of an amount equal to 1-2/3 times the contributions by permanent services personnel was $50 million consisting of $46 million relating to current contributions and $4 million to contributions for arrears. This was $3 million more than the 1956-57 contribution of $46 million of which $41 million related to current contributions and $5 million to contributions for arrears. The expenditures of $15 million for 1957-58 for the Department of Defence Production reflect a decrease of $6 million, mainly in respect of the programme under which capital assistance is given to private contractors, Crown plants operated on a management fee basis, and Crown corporations undertaking contracts essential to the defence programme. For 1957-58 this capital assistance was $5 million compared with $10 million in 1956-57. Civil defence expenditures at $4 million, reflected a slight increase over the 1956-57 expenditures. In addition to these budgetary expenditures for defence, there were certain other cash outlays which must be considered in assessing the full effect of the defence programme on the economy of Canada. The Department of Defence Production makes cash disbursements for the procurement of materials for use in the manufacture of defence equipment, which are not recorded as budgetary expenditures. For purposes of accounting and control, these amounts are charged to the defence production revolving fund and are treated as assets on the books of the government until they are billed to the Department of National Defence or sold to defence contractors for use in the manufacture of defence equipment. As a result of the transactions during 1957-58, the assets of the revolving fund were reduced by $2 million leaving a balance in the account of $54 million at March 31, 1958. As indicated above, defence equipment and supplies may, under the provi- sions of Section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, be transferred from Canadian stocks as mutual aid to other parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. For several years the estimated replacement values of equipment and supplies acquired by the Department of National Defence prior to March 31, 1950, and later trans- ferred to NATO countries, were credited to the National Defence equipment The Budget-Appendix account. These credits may be used subsequently to purchase equipment or supplies for the army, naval or air services, thereby involving cash outlays which are not reflected as budgetary expenditures. Since 1956 no further credits have been made to this equipment account. The Defence Services Vote provides that where any equipment or supplies are transferred as mutual aid, the esti- mated present value thereof shall be credited to that vote instead of being paid into the special equipment account, and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces. Disbursements from the equipment accoun t during the fiscal year were $24 million. The balance available at March 31, 1958 for disbursements in subsequent years was $212 million compared with $236 million at March 31, 1957. Under section 11 of the National Defence Act there is provision for the sale of materiel, not immediately required for the use of the Canadian defence forces or the Defence Research Board, to such countries and upon such terms as the Governor in Council may determine. The proceeds of such sales are credited to a special account to be used for the procurement of materiel. Net credits to the account during 1957-58 were $17 million leaving a balance of $18 million at March 31, 1958. The following table summarizes the cash outlays for defence for the past two fiscal years: TABLE 9 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increage or CASH OUTLAYs FOR DEFENCE 1958 1957 (Preliminary) Budgetary expenditures- Department of National Defence. ...................... 1,668.5 1,759.4 -90.9 Department of Defence Production................... 14.9 20.5 - 5.6 Civil defence programme............................ 4.0 3.7 0 3 1,687.4 1,783.6 -96.2 Disbursements from- National defence equipment account (1) ............... 24.3 45 9 -21.6 Replacement of materiel account-sec. 11, National Defence Act (net)................................. - 16.6 - 1.5 -15.1 Defence production revolving fund (net)................ - 1.9 -2.1 0.2 6.8 42 3 -86.6 Net cash outlay for defence................... 1.693 2 1,825.9 -132.7 (1) Gross disbursements less refunds of expenditures charged to account in previous years Public debt charges Public debt charges which consist of interest on the public debt, the annual charges for amortizing bond discounts and commissions, the cost of issuing new loans and other charges incurred in servicing the public debt amounted to $567 million for 1957-58 or 11 per cent of al] budgetary expenditure, compar(d with a total of $534 million or 11 per cent for 1956-57. They were again the second largest item of budgetary expenditure. Interest on public debt amounted to $539 million or $19 million more than the corresponding expenditure of $520 million in 1956-57. Interest on unmatured debt totalled $438 million compared with $430 million in the previous year. This increase was due to the rise in interest rates during the year and occurred despite the fact that unmatured debt had been reduced by $123 million during 1957-58. Increases of $5 million in respect of the superannuation account, $3 million in respect of the permanent services pension account and $2 million HOUSE OF COMMONS1336 JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix in respect of the government annuities account brought interest on annuity, insurance and pension accounts to $98 million for 1957-58 compared with $87 million for 1956-57. Interest of $3 million on deposit and trust accounts was unchanged from the total for 1956-57. Other public debt charges, which include the cost of issuing new loans, the annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions, fees for the services of fiscal agents and registrars, commission for the payment of interest on the public debt, and other costs of servicing the public debt totalled $28 million compared with $14 million in 1956-57. The increase of $14 million was due to an increase in the annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions of $9 million and to the fact that the 1956-57 charges had been reduced by a premium of $5 million on the partial conversion of the fifth victory loan. The table which follows presents a comparative summary of public debt charges for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 10 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase or INTEREsT AND OTHER PUBLIC DEBT CHARGES 1958 17 ecease (Preliminary) 1957 Interest on public debt- Unmatured debt and treasury bills- Payable in Canada............................... 428.3 419.6 8.7 Payable in London............................... 1.5 1.5 .............. Payable in New York............................ 8.6 8.6 ......... 438.4 429.7 8.7- Deposit and trust accounts............................ 3.2 3.3 -0.1 Annuity, insurance and pension accounts............... 97.7 87.2 10.5 100.9 90.5 10.4 Total interest on public debt.................. 539.3 520.2 19.1 Annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions.. 26.0 12.3 13.7 Servicing of public debt.................................. 0.6 0.5 0.1 Cost of issuing new loans.................................. 1.2 1.1 0.1 567.1 534.1 33.0 When considering the magnitude of these public debt charges and the bur- den they place upon the public treasury, it must be borne in mind that a substan- tial portion of the debt is attributable to, or is invested in, productive or earning assets. Therefore in calculating the net burden of the government's annual interest charges, the income derived from loans, investments and other productive assets must be taken into account. For 1957-58 this income amounted to $170 million as shown in the preceding section on non-tax revenue. This amount deducted from the gross total of $539 million for interest shown in the previous table leaves a net annual interest charge of $369 million compared with a net of $314 million in 1956-57. Subsidies and tax-sharing payments to provinces Payments to the provinces during 1957-58 for statutory subsidies, rentals under the tax-sharing arrangements act, the transitional grant to Newfoundland and the transfer of a portion of income tax receipts from certain public utility companies amounted to $383 million compared with $395 million in 1956-57. A comparative summary of the payments for the two years is given in the following table: HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-A ppendix TABLE il (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 SUBSIDIES, TAX-SHARING AND TAX-RENTAL ______________ Increase or PAYMIENTS TO PROVINCES 1958 Decrease(- (Preliminary) 1957 Payments under Tax-Rental Agreements Act, c. 49, Stat- utes of 1952........................................... ................ 365.9 -365.9 Payrnents under Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrange- mnents Act, c. 29, Statutes of 1956 ...................... .. 353.3 ........ 353.3 Statutory subsidies.......................20.6 20.6 ....... Transitional grant to Nýewfudad...............1.4 2.3 -0.9 Transfer of certain public utility tax receipts, Sec. 6, c. 49, Statutes of 1952............................... ........ 7.4 6.6 0.8 382.7 395.4 -12.7 Payments under the Federal-Provincial tax-sharing arrangements in 1957-58 were $13 million less than the payments under the tax-rental agreements in 1956-57. The decrease was due to the decision of the province of Ontario not to rent the corporation income tax field under the new tax-sharing agreement. If Ontario had rented the corporation income tax field, the 1957-58 payments would have been $105 million in excess of the 1956-57 payments. Payments to the provinces under the Federal-Provincial tax-sharing arrange- ments in 1957-58 as shown in the next table were adjusted by deducting $1 million from the tax-sharing entitlement of the provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This deduction represented recovery of one-fifth of the overpayment made to those provinces under the 1952 tax-rental agreements on account of an over-estimation of their population as revealed by the 1956 census. By memoranda of agreement with the provinces concerned, the 1952 tax agreements were amendcd to authorize the reuuvery of the overpayment in equal monthly deductions from the tax-sharing payments of those provinces over the five-year life of the new agreements. Statutory subsidies at $21 million in 1957-58 were unchanged from the previous year. A summary of payments, by provinces, during 1957-58 is given in the following table: TABLE 12 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1958 (Preliminary) SUBSîorEs AND TAX-SHARINO Payments Transfer of PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES Statutory under Transitional certain public Total subsidies tax-sharing grant utility tax arrangements receipts Newfoundland...................... 1.6 16.0 1.4 0.2 19.2 Nova Scotia....................... 2.0 26.4 ....... 0.4 28.8 Prince Edward Island ................ 0.7 4.1 ........ 0.1 4.9 New Brunswick. . . .................. 1.7 21.3 ........ 0.2 23.2 Quebec............................ 3.3 43.1 ....... 1.7 48.1 Ontario............................ 3.6 74.4 ....... 1.3 79.3 Manitoba.......................... 2.0 32.3 ....... 0.1 34.4 Saskatchewan...................... 2.1 33.1 ....... 0.1 35.3 Alberta............................ 2.3 43.6 ...... 2.0 47.9 British Columbia................... 1.3 59.0 ....... 1.3 61.6 20.6 353.3 1.4 7.4 382.7 1338 JUNE 17, 1959 l The Budget-A ppendix The amount of public utility tax receipts transferred to the provinces in 1957-58 amounted to $7 million or $1 million more than inI the previous year. Section 6 of the Tax-Rental Agreements Act, 1952, authorizes the payment to the provinces, whether participating in the agreements or not, of a portion of the income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to, or the generation for distribution to, the public of electrical energy, gas or steam. Family allowances Family allowances are payable in respect of aIl children under sixteen resident in Canada, with minor exceptions such as in the case of children of immigrants who must reside in Canada a year before an allowance is payable. The monthly allowance prior to September 1, 1957 was $5 if the child was under 6 years; $6 in the age group 6 to 9; $7 in the age group 10 to 12; and $8 in the age group 13 to 15. Effective September 1, 1957 the monthly allowance was changed to $6 if the child is under 10 years and $8 in the age group 10-15. Chiîdren of immigrants receive family assistance of $5 per month during their first year of resîdence in Canada from the Department of Citizenship and Immi- gration if during that period they are under sixteen years of age. Family allowance payments amounted to $438 million in 1957-58 repre- senting 9 per cent of total expenditures for the fiscal year. The increase of $40 million over the corresponding 1956-57 outlay refiects the increase in the monthly allowances and the increase in the number of children in the eligible age groups. The following table presents a comparative summary of payments by provinces: TABLE 13 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 FAidLy ALLOWANCE PAymEcNTs Bvy PROVINcEs19895 Increase (Preliminary) Newfoundland .......................................... 14.1 12.9 1.2 Nova Scotia ............................................ 19A4 18.0 1.4 Prince Edward Island. ...................... ** ..... ...* . **2.8 2.6 0.2 New Brunswick ......... ............................... 17.1 15.8 1.8 Quebec................................................ 136.1 124.4 11.7 Ontario ............................................... 136.8 122.5 14.3 Manitoba.............................................. 21.5 19.9 1.6 Saskatchewan .......................................... 23.2 21.6 1.6 Alberta ............................................... 31.0 28.0 3.0 British Columbia........................................ 35.0 31.0 4.0 Northwest and Yukon Territories......................... 0.9 0.8 0.1 437.9 397.5 40.4 Unemployment Insurance Act administration and government's contribution Expenditures in 1957-58 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Act (excluding the government's payment as an employer) amounted to $70 million compared with $66 million spent in 1956-57. Unemployment insurance benefit payments are not charged directly to budgetary expenditures but are paid from the unemployment insurance fund which is financed by contributions from employees and employers, by interest earned on investments, and by the government's contribution of an amount equal to one-fifth of combined employer-employee contributions. 10 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix The government's contribution to the fund for 1957-58 was $38 million and administration costs were $32 million; the corresponding figures for 1956-57 were $37 million and $29 million. Government contributions with respect Io the superannuation account The government's contribution to the superannuation account was $78 million in 1957-58 compared with $72 million in 1956-57. 0f this total $44 million was due to the additional liability created by the general salary increases to civil servants effective May 1, 1957 and $34 million to the government's regular contribution of an amount equal to the current and prior service payments of individuals. The corresponding figures for 1956-57 were $41 million and $31 million. Provision for reserve for losses on realization of assets No charge to expenditures for an addition to the general reserve for losses on realization of assets has been included in the government's accounts for 1957-58. In 1956-57, $50 million was added to the reserve and charged to expenditure. The balance in the reserve which was $546 million at March 31, 1957 remains unchanged, and is equivalent to 7 per cent of the aggregate active assets. Agriculture Expenditures of the Department of Agriculture totalled $95 million for 1957-58 compared with $85 million in 1956-57. The net increase of $10 million was due to the deficit of $6 million in the prairie farm emergency fund (for which there was no corresponding charge in 1956-57) and increases of $2 million in the costs of experimental farms service, $1 million each in costs of marketing service, science service, and operating losses of the agricultural stabilization board offset in part by a decrease of $1 million in rehabilitation and reclamation projects. Authorîty of parliament will he sought to charge to 1957-58 expenditure the operating losses of the agricultural stabilization board. A comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57 is presented in the following table: TABLE 14 (in millions of dollars) _______ Fiscal Year Ended. March 31 AGRICULTURE 1 Increase or 12elmnay 1957 Decrease(- Experimental farms service................................. 13.8 11.9 1.9 Freighf. asistance on wvestern feed grains ............... 17.5 17.5 ....... Marketing service ..................-...................... 7.4 6.6 0.8 Operating loases of the agricultural stabilization board .0 5.0 1.0 Prairie farrn emergency fund-deflcit ...................... .. 5.9 ........ 5.9 Premium on hog carcasses including administrative costs. 5.5 5.7 -0.2 Production service......................................... 12.9 12.3 0.6 Rehabilitation and reclamnation projeets...................... 12.4 13.6 -1.2 Science service............................................. 10.6 9.8 0.8 Administration and general.................................. 2.7 2.2 0.5 94.7 84.6 10.1 Atornic energy Expenditures of the Atomic Energy Control Board and payînents to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited totalled $22 million for 1957-58 the same as for 1956-57. The Budget-Appendix Administration expenses of the Atomic Energy Control Board and grants for research and investigations with respect to atomic energy were $0.5 million, compared with $0.3 million for the previous year. Payments to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for its research programme amounted to $21 million compared with $22 million in 1956-57. Of the total, $14 million was for current operations and maintenance and $7 million for the construction and acquisition of buildings, land, works and equipment. In addition, advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for the con- struction or acquisition of buildings and equipment at Chalk River and Deep River and for the commercial products division at Ottawa amounted to $3 million. This brought the total of advances covered, or to be covered, by obliga- tions or shares of the company to $56 million at March 31, 1958. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Payments by the Government of Canada to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation totalled $43 million for 1957-58 compared with $39 million in 1956-57. This increase of $4 million was due to an increase of $6 million in the grant toward the deficit in radio broadcasting and television service offset in part by a decrease of $2 million in the payment to the corporation of an amount equivalent to the collection of the 15 per cent special tax imposed on radio and television sets and tubes. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures and advances for the past five years: TABLE 15 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 1954 1955 1956 1957 (Prli5nry(Preliminary) Grants to the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora- tion by the Government of Canada- International shortwave broadcasting ser- vice.................................. 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 Amounts equal to tax collected under the Excise Tax Act in respect of radio and television sets and tubes.............. 16.7 20.8 23.1 19.3 16.8 Radio broadcasting and television service. 6.3 6.3 6.3 18.3 24.4 25.0 19.2 31.2 39.3 43.0 Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora- tion by the Government of Canada........ 4.8 3.0 8.5 .......... .............. Less repaym ents.............................. .......... .......... -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 4.8 3.0 8.4 -0.1 -0.3 29.8 32.2 39.6 39.2 42.7 No additional loans were made to the corporation in 1957-58, total loans remaining at $27 million at March 31, 1958. Interest at various rates is paid semi-annually and is included in non-tax revenues under the heading "Return on investments". Citizenship and Immigration Expenditures of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration were $52 million for 1957-58 compared with $44 million in 1956-57. The principal items causing this increase were a $4 million increase in Indian affairs, mainly for larger outlays for Indian education, and a $3 million increase in immigration JUNE 17, 1958 1341 12 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-A ppendix expenditures which included family assistance under which children of immi- grants under the age of sixteen in their first year in Canada are eligible for a monthly allowance of $5. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 16 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase CITIZENSHIP ANI) IMMIGRATION or 1958 eres (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Citizenship and citizenship registration........................ 1.3 1.1 0.2 Immigration............................................... 22.0 18.6 3.4 Indian affairs............................................... 27.9 23.7 4.2 Administration and general................................... 0.6 0.7 -0.1 51.8 44.1 7.7 National Gallery of Canada- Payment to the purchase account........................... 0.1 0.1 ....... Administration and general.............. .................. 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 52.4 44.5 7.9 External Affairs Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs amounted to $60 million the samne as for 1956-57. A decrease of $2 million in Canada's assess- ment for membership in international or commonwealth organizations wvas more than offset by increases in other categories. The decrease of $2 million in Canada's assessment for membership in international or commonwealth organizations was due mainly to a change in the effective date of payments in 1956-57 which increased the payments for that year. The followîng table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 17 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase EXTERNAT. AFFAIaS or 1958197 Dces (Preliminary) 197 Dres(- Assistance to other countries................................. 2.0 1.5 0.5 Canada's asscssment for membership in international or commonwealth organizations............................ 3.4 5.7 -2.3 Contributions to international organizations .................... 4.6 4.1 0.5 Grant to Colombo plan fund................................ 34.4 34.4 ....... Represontation abroad...................................... 9.3 8.5 0.8 Administration and general.................................. 6.5 6.0 0.5 60.2 60.2 .... .. . Finance The major items of expenditure for the Department of Finance have been dealt with in previous paragraphs under the headings "Public debt charges", "Subsidies and tax-sharing payments to provinces"~ and "Government contribu- tion with respect to the superannuation accounit". JUNE 17, 1958 1 The Budget-Appendix Other expenditures totalled $159 million for 1957-58, an increase of $108 million over the expenditures for 1956-57. This increase of $108 million was due to a grant of $100 million to the Canada Council, for which there was no corre- sponding charge in 1956-57, and increases of $8 million in grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property and $2 million in administration expenses of the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury offset in part by decreases of $1 million in premium, discount and exchange and $1 million in administration and general costs. The following table presents a comparison of 1957-58 expenditures with those for 1956-57: TABLE 18 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase FiNANCE 1958 or (Preiminry) 1957 Decrease(- Grant to Canada Council..................... ........... 100.0 ................ 100.0 Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury-administration expenses ............................................ 17.5 16.0 1.5 Grants to universities.. ........ ......................... 16.6 16.0 0.6 Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property. 17.5 9.5 8.0 Government contribution as an employer to the unemploy- ment insurance fund.................................. 0.8 0.8 ....... Premnium, discount and exchange ........................ ................ 1.4 -1.4 Administration and general............................... 6.5 7.2 -0.7 158.9 50.9 108.0 Mines and Technical Surveys Expenditures of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys totalled $36 million for 1957-58, the same as for 1956-57. A decrease of $1 million in connection with the movement of coal under the Dominion Coal Board was offset by smaller increases in other expenditure categories. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 19 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 Increase MINEs AND TECHNICAL SlURVEYS 1958 or (Preliminary) 1957 Decrease(- Emergency gold mining assistance......................... 8.6 8.7 -0.1 Dominion Coal Board .................................... 8.8 9.7 -0.9 Surveys and mapping including aerial photography ..... 10.5 10.2 0.3 Mines branch............................................ 3.3 3.2 0.1 Geological Survey of Canada.............................. 2.7 2.4 0.3 Administration and general............................... 2.2 1.7 0.5 36.1 35.9 0.2 The Budget-A ppendix National Heallh and Welf are Family allowance payments, amounting to $438 million for 1957-58, con- stitute the main item of expendîture for the Department of National Health and Welfare and have been deait with under a separate heading in preceding paragraphs. Civil defence expenditures, amounting to $4 million, are deait with under the heading "Defence expenditures". Other expenditures of the Department in 1957-58 totalled $221 million, an increase of $61 million compared with expenditures of $160 million in 1956-57. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 20 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 NATIONAL HEALTE AND WELFARB 1958aS o (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Blind persons al]owances.................................... 3.6 3.0 0.6 Disabled persons allowances................................ 11.1 7.2 3.9 Gencral health grants...................................... 34.6 36.3 -1.7 Indian and Eskimo health services.......................... 19.8 18.2 1.6 Old age assistance.......................................... 25.1 20.3 4.8 Other health services....................................... 10.3 7.3 3.0 Reduction in the amounit owing by the old age security fund................................................... 103.9 56.0 47.9 IJnemployment Assistance Act.............................. 8.2 7.9 0.3 Administration and general.................................. 4.5 4.3 0.2 22.1 160.5 60.6 Outstanding temporary loans by the Minister of Finance to the old age security fund amounted to $104 million at March 31, 1958. Parliament will be asked to authorize writing off these temporary loans as a charge to expenditure in the 1957-58 accounts. Expenditures for Indian and Eskimo health services were $20 million for 1957-58 compared with $18 million for 1956-57. Expenditures for other health services were $10 million in 1957-58 compared with $7 million in 1956-57. General health grants to the provinces for assistance in hospital construc- tion, general health scrvices and the control of diseases amounted to $35 million for 1957-58 compared with expenditures of $36 million in 1956-57. Under the Old Age Assistance Act, the federal government reimburses the provinces by paying 50 per cent of the lesser of $55 monthly or the amount of assistance given by the provinces in the form of monthly pensions to eligible persons in need who are in the age group 65 to 69. (Under the Old Age Security Act, aIl persons 70 years and over who satisfy the residence requirements of the Act may receive a pension of $55 per month from the federal government out of the old age security fund.) Similarly, the federal government reimburses the provinces under the Blind Persons Act for allowances of not more than $55 per month to blind persons in need over the age of 18 by paying 75 per cent of the HOUSE OF COMMONS1344 JUNE 17, 1958 13 The Budget-A ppendix total payments, and under the Disabled Persons Act by paying 50 per cent of not more than $55 per month for allowances to disabled persons in need over the age of 18 years. Two sets of amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, and the Disabled Persons Act, raised the maximum pension towards which the Federal Government would contribute from $40 to $46 effective July 1, 1957 and from $46 to $55 effective November 1, 1957. Similar increases were made in old age security pensions at the same times, through amendments to the Old Age Security Act. In 1957-58 payments for old age assistance were $25 million compared with $20 million in 1956-57, for blind persons allowances $4 million compared with $3 million and for disabled persons allowances $11 million compared with $7 million. Under the Unemployment Assistance Act the federal government contrib- utes up to 50 per cent of the cost of unemployment assistance paid by the provinces, subject to certain deductions as set out in the Act. To date eight provinces have signed agreements with the federal government. Expenditures under this Act amounted to $8 million for 1957-58 the same as for 1956-57 which covered a twenty-one month period from July 1, 1955 (the effective date stipulated in the Act) to Mardi 31, 1957. The following table presents a distribution of these payments to provinces for health grants, old age assistance, disabled persons and blind persons allow- ances and for unemployment assistance for 1957-58: TABLE 21 (in millions of dollars) GEcN]RAL HEALTH GaAN'r5 AND FIEDIIAL Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1958 (Preliminary) SHARS OF OLD AGim Ai55T5TANcu, DISABLIED PECRSONs ALLOWANCES, General Old Disabled Blind Unem- BLIND PHRSONS ALLOWANCES ANI) health ae persons persons ployment UNDmpLoymzNT AmBITANCE grants asitneallowances 'liwance. assistance Newfoundland............................ 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.8 Nova Scotia............................. 1.9 1.3 0.5 0.3 (1) Prince Edward Island................... 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 New Brunswick.......................... 1.8 1.6 0.4 0.3 (1) Quebec.................................. 8.3 8.8 6.0 1.3.... Ontario.................................. 9.9 5.7 2.5 0.7 2.1* Manitoba................................ 2.2 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 Saskatchewan............................ 2.3 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 Alberta.................................. 2.9 1.5 0.4 0.2 ...... British Columbia........................3.8 2.0 0.3 0.2 2.8 N orthw est and Y ukon Territories . . .. 0.1 0.1 () (') . . . .8 2 34.6 25.1 11.1 3.6 82 (') Less than $50,000. National Research Council Expenditures of the National Researchi Council amounted to $22 million for 1957-58, $3 million higher than for 1956-57. Salaries and other expenses amounting to $19 million were $3 million more than the corresponding amount in 1956-57; the costs of construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment totalling $3 million were approximately the same as the corresponding outlay in 1956-57. 16 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix National Revenue Expenditures of the Department of National Revenue were $68 million for 1957-58 compared with $62 million in 1956-57. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for the two years: TABLE 22 (ini millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 NATIONAL REVENUE 1958as o (Preliminary) ~ Dces - Customs and excise division............................... 36.5 33.4 3.1 Taxation division ......................................... 31.0 28.3 2.7 Licorne tax appeal board................................... 0.2 0.1 0.1 67.7 61.8 5.9 Northern Affairs and National Resources Expenditures of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Re- sources in 1957-58 xvere $49 million, compared with $37 million in 1956-57. 0f this increase of $12 million, $7 million was attributable to expenditures by the northern administration and lands branch (of which $5 million was for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and $2 million for operation and maintenance); $2 million to expenditures by the national parks branch (of which $1 million was for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equîpment); and $3 million to the expenditures of the forestry branch. The following table presents a comparative summary of expeniditures for 1957-58 with those for 1956-57: TABLE 23 (io millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 NOR'rHERiN AFFAlas AND NATIONAL RxsouacEs Increase or 1958 1957 Decrease(- (Preliminary) National parks braneh.................................... 18.2 16.4 1.8 Engineering and water resources branch..................... 1.8 1.8 ....... Northern administration and lands branch................. 18.6 12.1 6.5 Forestry branch.......................................... 7.2 4.5 2.7 Canadian government travel bureau........................ 1.9 1.5 0.4 Administration and general................................ 0.9 0.7 0.2 48.6 37.0 11.6 Post Office Gross expenditures of the Post Office Department for 1957-58 were $177 million, an increase of $15 million over the 1956-57 outlay of $162 million. The Budget-Appendix Remuneration of postmasters and staffs at revenue and semi-staff offices, commissions at sub-offices and certain other authorized disbursements are paid from revenue. These payments, included in the total of $177 million, amounted to $24 million for 1957-58, compared with $22 million in 1956-57. Disbursements charged to budgetary expenditures were $153 million, an increase of $13 million over expenditures in 1956-57, due mainly to the increase of $6 million on account of the general salary increase effective May 1, 1957, and $5 million in costs of movement of mail. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 24 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 POST OFFICE Increase or (Prel195 r 1957 Decrease (-) (Pemmnary) Charged to budgetary expenditure- Operations-salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices and railway mail services; and supplies and equipment and other items for revenue post offices........................................... 94.7 86.6 8.1 Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and w ater................................................ 54.1 49.4 4.7 Financial services...................................... 2.6 2.4 0.2 Administration and general............................. 1.9 1.6 0.3 153.3 140.0 13.3 Charged to revenue- Operations-salaries of postmasters and staffs at revenue and semi-staff offices, commissions paid at sub-offices and other disbursements ............................ 24.2 22.1 2.1 177.5 162.1 15.4 Public Works Expenditures of the Department of Public Works for 1957-58 amounted to $206 million, compared with $165 million for 1956-57, an increase of $41 million. Costs of the development engineering branch increased by $26 million of which $25 million was attributable to the trans-Canada highway; costs of the public buildings construction and services branch increased by $11 million, of which $9 million was for the acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings in Ottawa; and costs of the harbours and rivers engineering branch increased by $3 million due mainly to the acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 with those for 1956-57: 1347JUNE 17, 1958 18 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-A ppendix TABLE 25 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 PUBLC WELKS--- -- Increase or PULcWRS1958197 D res (Preliminary) 197 Dcee(- Publie buildings-construction and services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings- Ottawa................................................ 16.9 8.1 8.8 Other centres in Canada................................ 36.3 36.7 -0.4 Outside Canada ................................. 01............. 0'1 Maintenance and operation................................ 41.4 38.9 2 5 Furniture and furnishings.................................. 2.3 2.4 -0.1 General.................................................. 3.4 3.6 -0.2 100.4 89.7 10.7 Harbours and rivers engineering services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river wnrks...................................... 24.3 21.8 2.5 Harbours and rivers-generally............................ 3.0 3.4 -0.4 Dredging................................................ 3.8 3.5 0.3 General.................................................. 1.1 0.9 0.2 322 9.6 24.6 Development engineering services- Trans-Canada highway division- Contributions to the provinces under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act........................... 49.4 24.8 24.6 Trans-Canada highway through national parks ... 12.6 11.3 1.3 General.................................................. 1.4 1.6 -0.2 63.4 37.7 25.7 Housing................................................... 2.7 1.8 0.9 Administration and general.................................. 7.3 6.5 0.8 206.0 165.3 40.7 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Expenditures for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police amounted to $47 million for 1957-58, $4 million more than the total spent in 1956-57. Larger out- lays of $2 million in land and air services, and $1 million each in marine services and headquarters administration and general (due mainly to the salary increase effective May 1, 1957) accounted for the increase. These payments represented gross expenditures; payments received from. the provinces and municipalities for police services totalling $7 Million were credited to revenue. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 26 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended Marcb 31 ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE Increase or 1958 Dces (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Land and air services...................................... 31.4 29.3 2.1 Marine services............................................ 3.2 2.3 0.9 Government contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension account................................... 1.5 1.6 -0.1 Pensions and other benefits.................................. 2.5 2.3 0.2 Headquarters administration and general..................... 8.8 7.9 0.9 47.4 43.4 4.0 JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix Trade and Commerce Expenditures for the Department of Trade and Commerce totalled $57 million for 1957-58 compared with $55 million for 1956-57. The net increase of $2 million was due to increases of $2 million in assistance re storage costs of grain and $2 million in administration and general expenditures, offset in part by a decrease of $3 million in the outlay of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The 1957-58 expenditures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics did not include an item comparable to the $4 million spent in 1956-57 for the 1956 census. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 27 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 TitAz &N) ComicicicIncrease or TRADE AND COMMERCE 1958 1957 e e (Preliminary) Assistance re storage costs of grain........................ 33.3 31.8 1.5 Canada Grain Act....................................... 6.3 5.9 0.4 Dominion Bureau of Statistics............................ 7.5 10.0 -2.5 Standards branch........................................ 2.2 1.9 0.3 Trade commissioners service............................. 3.3 2.9 0.4 Administration and general............................... 4.4 2.9 1.5 57.0 55.4 1.6 Transport Expenditures of the Department of Transport for 1957-58 amounted to $207 million, an increase of $49 million over the total of $158 million in 1956-57. Expenditures for air services at $91 million were $20 million higher than those for the previous year. This was due to an increase in the outlays of the civil aviation division of $12 million, of which $9 million was for the construction and acquisition of buildings, works, lands and new equipment including con- struction work on municipal airports and $3 million for the operation and main- tenance of airways and airports; an increase in the outlays of the telecommuni- cations division of $6 million, of which $4 million was for the construction and acquisition of new lines; and an increase of $2 million in the costs of the meteoro- logical division. Expenditures for marine services amounted to $33 million in 1957-58, an increase of $6 million over the outlay of $27 million in 1956-57. This increase was due mainly to higher expenditures for the construction and acquisition of steamers. Expenditures for railway and steamship services amounted to $18 million, a decrease of $3 million from the previous year. Decreases of $2 million in costs of construction and acquisition of auto ferries and $1 million in expenditures in connection with the Straits of Canso causeway accounted for this decrease. Expenditures for the Board of Transport Commissioners at $13 million were the same as in the previous year. Payments to cover the net operating deficits of certain Crown corporations totalled $31 million in 1957-58, an increase of $23 million over expenditures of $8 million in 1956-57. The increase was due almost entirely to the reimbursement of $22 million to the Canadian National Railways on account of its 1957 deficit 1350 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix for which there was no corresponding charge in the previous year. "Non- active" advances to the National Harbours Board totalled $5 million in 1957-58 compared with $4 million for 1956-57. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 28 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 TRANSPORT Increase or 1958 Dces (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Air services- Civil aviation division.................................. 53.3 41.5 11.8 Meteorological division........................ ......... 10.8 9.2 1.6 Telecommunications division............................ 24.0 17.9 6.1 Administration......................................... 2.4 1.9 0.5 90.5 70.6 20.0 Canal services............................................. 8.6 8.2 0.4 Marine services............................................ 32.7 26.9 5.8 Railway and steamship services- Maritime Freight Rates Act- Difference between tariff and normal tolîs ..... 12.6 12.5 0.1 Strait of Canso causeway................................ 0.1 1.1 -1.0 Construction and acquisition of auto ferries ...... 1.5 3. 1 - 1.6 Other.................................................. 4.0 4.0 ....... 18.2 20.7 -2.5 Board of Transport Commissioners- Maintenance of trackage ................................ 7.0 7.0 .. .... Railway grade crossing fund .......................... .. 5.0 5.0 ....... Administration and general........................... 1.1 0.9 0.2 13.1 12.9 0.2 Canadian Maritime Commission............................. 5.3 5.0 0.3 Crown Corporations- Net income deficits.................................... 30.9 7.5 23.4 Non-active advances- National Harbours Board ... 4.8 4.1 0.7 85.7 11.6 24.1 Administration and general.................................. 2.7 2.4 0.3 206.8 158.2 48.6 Veterans Affairs Expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs were $277 million in 1957-58 compared with expenditures of $252 million in 1956-57. The net increase of $25 million was due mainly to increases of $15 million in pensions for disability or death and $7 million in war veterans allowances as a resuit of legislation increasing on July 1 and November 1, 1957 monthly payments of pensions and allowances, and $4 million in the costs of treatment services. Partly offsetting these increases xvas a decrease of $2 million in the provision for reserve for conditional benefits under the Veterans Land Act. Expenditures relating to the administration of the Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Acts were $5 million, unchanged from the previous year, while the provision for the reserve for conditional benefits under the Veterans Land Act was $5 million. These conditional benefits are granted to veterans who enter into agreements with the director for purchases of land and chattels provided they fulfil the termis of the agreements for ten years. The amount charged to expenditures under this heading covers one-tenth of the conditional benefits included in sales to veterans. The Budget-A ppendix The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 29 (in millions of do]lars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 VETERANs AFFAIRS Increase or 1958197 Dces (Preliminary) 197 Dces(- Pensions for disability or death........................... 145.6 130.3 15.3 Treatment and welfare services............................ 59.7 55.4 4.3 War veterans allowances and other benefits ................. 53.2 45.8 7.4 War service gratuities and re-establishment credits ..... 1.8 2.4 -0.6 Soldier Settiement and Veterans Land Acts- Administration and general............................ 5.6 5.4 0.2 Provision for reserve for conditional benefits, Veterans Land Act......................................... 5.2 6.8 -1.6 Departmental, district and pensions administration and miscellaneous payments............................... 5.6 5.4 0.2 276.7 251.5 25.2 AUi other departments Expenditures of the departments not deait with in preceding sections amounted to $90 million for 1957-58, compared with expenditures of $70 million 'n 1956-57. The increase of $20 million was due mainly to increases of $13 million in the expenses of the Chief Electoral Officer, due to the June 1957 and March 1958 federal elections; $3 million in expenditures of the Department of Fisheries, mainly in the outlays of the Fisheries Research Board; and $3 million in expendi- tures of the Department of Labour, mainly in the costs of vocational. training. The following table presents a comparative summary of expenditures for 1957-58 and 1956-57: TABLE 30 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 ALL THE DEPRTMNTSIncrease or AL OHE EPETEN51958 Dces (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Auditor General.......................................... 0.8 0.7 0.1 Chief Electoral Officer............................. 13.6 0.2 13.4 Civil Service Commission.......................... 3.2 2.7 0.5 Fisheries................................................. 16.4 13.8 2.6 Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors................ 0.4 0.4 ....... Insurance................................................ 0.6 0.5 0.1 Justice ................................................... 7.2 7.0 0.2 Office of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.............. 12.7 12.0 0.7 Labour................................................... 12.4 9.5 2.9 Legislation............................................... 6.8 7.2 -0.4 National Film Board..................................... 4.0 5.0 -1.0 Privy Counicil including Federal District Commission ... 3.9 3.9 ....... Public Archives and National Library .................... 0.6 0.6 ....... Public Printing and Stationery............................ 3.3 3.2 0.1i Secretary of State................................ ........ 4.0 3.5 0.589.9 70.2 19.7 1351JUNE 17, 1958 52 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix 4. SUMMARY 0F ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 0F CANADA AT MARCII 31, 1958 The balances of the asset and liability accounts at March 31, 1958, the comparable balances at March 31, 1957, and the changes in each category during 1957-58 are shown in the following table: TABLE 31 SummARY 0p ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 0F CANADA (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 mncrease 1958 or (Pre]iminary) 1957 Decrease(- LIABILIrIES Ciirrent andl demnnd liabilities .............. 874.8 1,002.9 -128.1 Deposit and trust accounts................................. 186.9 167.6 19.3 Annuity, insurance and pension accounts .................... 2, j12.0 2,427.2 284.8 Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts. 285.4 312.5 -27.1 Suspense accounts.......................................... 64.1 47.6 16.5 Unmatured debt ......................................... 14,245.1 14,368.4 -123.3 18,368.3 18,326.2 42.1 ASSETS Current assets.................... ........................ 694.5 947.0 -252.5 Advances to exchange found accouit......................... 1,975.0 2,021.0 -46.0 Sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt............................. .......... 212.2 210.8 1.4 Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations ..... 2,549.8 2,250.5 299.3 Loans to national goveroments ......... .................... 1,443 .7 1,478.6 - 34.9 Other loans and investments............................... 658.0 655.1 2.9 Securities held in trust................... .................. 22.6.................. 22.6 Province debt account arising out of 1952 tax-rental agree- ments................................. ................ 4.1 0.1 4.0 Deferred charges........................................... 76.6 63.9 12.7 Unamortized portion of actuarial deficiency in the super- annuation account...................................... 139.0 139.0 ....... Suspense accounts......................................... ................ 9.4 -9.4 Capital assets............................................ (1) (1) ....... Inactive boans and investments.............................. 90.9 89.5 1 .4 Total assets................................... 7,866.4 7,864.9 1.5 Less reserve for losses on realization of assets ................- 546.4 -546.4 ....... Net assets.................. ................. 7,320.0 7,318.5 1.5 Net debt (excess of liahilities over net assets) ................ 11,048.3 11,007.7 (2) 40.6_ (1) Shown at nominal value of $1. (2) Reflectinie the budgetary deficit of $39 million plus adjustments of 31 million in respect of prior years transactions. A. CHANGES IN PRINCIPAL LIABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS DURING 1957-58 The gross liabilities of the government increased by $42 million during the fiscal year. Increases of $285 million in annuity, insurance and pension accounts, $16 million in suspense accounts and $19 million in deposit and trust accounts were only partly offset by decreases of $128 million in current and demand liabilities, $123 million in unmatured debt and $27 million in undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts. JUNE 17, 1958 Current and demand liabilities The Budget-A ppenclix Current and demnand liabilities, which include matured. debt outstanding, outstanding treasury cheques and interest, interest accrued, accounts payable, non-interest bearing notes payable to the international monetary fund and the international bank for reconstruction and development and other obligations payable on demand, decreased by $128 million during the fiscal year. Decreases of $81 million in outstandîng treasury cheques, $31 million in accounts payable, $12 million in matured debt outstanding, $8 million in non-interest bearing notes, $3 million in the net liability for post office money orders and $2 million in interest due and outstanding, were partially offset by an increase of $9 million in interest accrued. MILLIONS OF DOLLAPS TOTAL LIABILITIES c JUUU FISCAL YEARS ENDCO MARCH 31 20000 ----- CUse 0111R LIASILITIES ~% UNMATURIED TRE.SUR BILLSI DOLLAS 125000 UNMATUREO BONDS - 10000 5000 ANNUITY 'NSURANCE AND PENSION ACCOUNTS CI%)SEPOSIT ANS TRUST ACCOUNTS CURRENT ANS SEMAND LIABILITIES 01951 r952 1963 1954 1955 1956 1957 1956. f *LSO INOLISES TREASUBIF NSTE FOR TRE FISCA StARS EINS 11 1956 INCLUSSE.*PRE;IM1NARY 15e The changes in the various accounts are shown in the f ollowing table: TABLE 32 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 Increase CuRRlENT AND) DEmAN> LIAaSaIiTirs or ________________________________________ (Prelimin1ary) 1957 Decrease(- Outstanding treasury cheques............................ 233.1 314.0 -80.9Accounts payable...................... .......... 201.8 232.9 -31.1Non-interest bearing notes payable teteinternational monetary fund and the international bank for recon- struction and development........................... 203.8 211.8 - 8.0Maturcd debt outstanding ................................ 23.6 36.0 - 12.4Interest due and outstanding............................. 57.0 59.1 - 2.1Interest accrued................................. 129.1 120.0 9.1Post Office (net liability for money orders, e.)26.0 28.6 - 2.6Other current liabilities.................................. 0.4 0.5 - 0.1 874.8 1,002.9 -128.1 57071-3--86 4 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix Deposit and trust accounts Deposit and trust accounts which consist of sundry funds deposited with the Receiver General or held in trust for various purposes increased by $19 million during 1957-58. In 1957-58 a new account was set up to record deposits of Crown corpora- tions of cash temporarily in excess of current requirements which would earn interest at a rate determined on the basis of weekly treasury bill yields. At March 31, 1958 the balance in this account was $10 million. Also during the fiscal year it was decided to record in the contractors' security account, in addition to the cash deposits formerly recorded, the value of all bonds and certified cheques held by the government as a guarantee of the fulfilment of contracts. This amount was also included as a contra account in the asset category "Securities held in trust". At March 31, 1958 the value of these additional securities was $13 million. Other major changes in this category were decreases of $6 million in contractors' holdbacks, $4 million in contractors' securities-cash, and $3 million in the prairie farm emergency fund. The increase of $8 million in all other deposit and trust accounts was due to a change in the method of presenta- tion of those portions of certain deposit and trust accounts which are held in the form of bonds. In prior years these were shown as a deduction from the gross liability whereas in 1957-58 they are included in the new asset account "Securities held in trust". Annuity, insurance and pension accounts Annuity, insurance and pension accounts increased by $285 million during 1957-58. The changes in the various accounts are shown in the following table. TABLE 33 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 Increase ANNUITY, INSURANCS AND PENSION ACCoUNTS or 1958 197 Decrease(- (Preliminary) Unemployment insurance fund............................. 754.8 885.7 -130.9 Less investment in bonds and accrued interest............. -- 739.7 -875.1 135.4 15.1 10.6 4.5 Government annuities.................................... 1,047.6 989.3 58.3 Superannuation account................................... 1,045.8 919.0 126.8 Permanent services pension account....................... 513.8 426.3 87.5 Other....................................................89.7 82.0 7.7 2,712.0 2,427.2 284.8 The unemployment insurance fund decreased by $131 million during the year reducing the balance at March 31, 1958 to $755 million. Of this amount $740 million was invested in bonds and accrued interest and $15 million was held by the Receiver General in the consolidated revenue fund. The decrease of $131 million in the fund represents the amount by which benefit payments totalling $385 million exceeded contributions by employers, employees and the government, income from investments and other miscellaneous revenue credited to the fund. Benefit payments in the fiscal year were $154 million higher than the $231 million in 1956-57. The government annuities account increased by $58 million reflecting the amount by which premium receipts, interest credited to the account by the government and the amount required to maintain the reserve exceeded payments to annuitants and beneficiaries. The Budget-A ppendix The increase of $127 million in the superannuation account was due mainly to the government's contribution of $34 million equal to the estimated current and prior service payments of individuals in 1956-57, the government's contri- bution of $44 million in respect of the civil service salary increase effective May 1, 1957 and $40 million interest credited to the account. The remainder of the increase was due to the excess of employee's current and prior service contribu- tions over benefit payments. The permanent services pension account increased by $88 million, refiecting the government's contribution of $50 million which is made at the rate of one and two-thirds times the current and prior service contributions, interest on the account of $18 million and contributions by permanent services personnel for current and prior years service less payments from the account. Other annuity, insurance and pension accounts showed an increase of $8 million for the fiscal year. Old age .security fund Under the Old Age Security Act pensions of $55 per month are paid, without a means test, from the old age security fund to ahl eligible persons seventy years of age and over. The monthly allowance was raised from $40 to $46 effective July 1, 1957 and from $46 to $55 effective November 1, 1957. Payments from the fund during the fiscal year were $474 million while credits to the fund from the proceeds of the 2 per cent tax on personal incomes (maximum tax $60), the 2 per cent tax on corporation profits and the 2 per cent sales tax totalled $372 million. Temporary loans amounting to $102 million were required to cover the deficit resulting from these transactions during 1957-58. Parliament will be asked to authorize writing off to expenditure in 1957-58 the remainder of the 1956-57 deficit of $2 million and the 1957-58 deficit of $102 million. The following table shows the transactions in the old age security fund for the fiscal years ended Mardi 31, 1953 to 1958 inclusive: TABLE 34 (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Ended March 31 OLD AGE SEOuEifTy Fux:o 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958(l) Tax receipts-2 per cent sales tax............................. 141.5 146.8 143.1 160.4 179.3 175.82 per cent personaljincome tax .................. 45.2 90.7 100.9 102.5 125.0 135.02 per cent corporation income tax ................ 36.9 55.6 46.0 53.3 67.3 60.7 Total tax receipts ...................... 223.6 293.1 290.0 316.2 371.6 371.5Pension payments................................ -323.1 -338.9 -353.3 -366.2 -379.1 -473.9 i:ýxcess of payments over receipts ..................- 99.5 -45.8 -63.3 -50.0 -7.5 -102.4Previous deficit brought forward................... ........ -99.5 -45.8 -63.3 -50.0 -1.5 Appropriation by Parliament- Charged to, budgetary expenditure .............. ........ ........ 45.8 63.3 56.0 103.9Charged to reserve for losses on realixzation ofj assets ................................. ........ 99.5 ............. ........ ....... Deficit in fund covered by temporary loan from te Minister of Finance ....................... .- 99.5 -45.8 -63.3 -50.0 -1.5... (') Preliminary. 57071-3-86J 1355JUNE 17, 1958 1356 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix A distribution by provinces of pension payments from the old age security fund for the last two years is shown in the following table: TABLE 35 (ini millions of dollars) Fis~cal Year Ended March 31 Increase OLD AGE SECUBRIY PAYMIENTS BY PROVINCES or 1958 1957 Decrease(- (Preliminary) Newfoundland............................................. 9.9 7.7 2.2 Nova Scotia............................................... 23.0 18.7 4.3 Prince Edward Island...................................... 3.7 3.4 0.3 New Brunswick ................ ............................... 16.7 13.5 3.2 Quebec.................................................... 99.5 79.7 19.8 Ontario................................................... 172.9 138.8 34.1 Manitoba... .............................................. 28.6 22.9 5.7 Saskatchewan....................... ..................... 29.4 23.3 6.1 Alberta................................................... 30.4 23.9 6.15 ritish Coluimbia.......................................... 59 5 46.9 12.6 Northwest and Yukon Territories........................... 0.3 0.3 .............. 473.9 379.1 94.8 Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts This category was set up to record the undisbursed balances of appropria- tions to special accounts for whichi moncys have been appropriated by parliament and from which disburscînents may bc made for authorized purposes in periods subsequent to that in which the appropriation xvas made. There was a net decrease of $27 million during the year in these accounts, due to decreases of $24 million in the national defence equipment account and $6 million in the Colombo plan fund and an increase of $3 million in the railway grade crossing fund. The decrease of $6 million ini the Colombo plan fund represented the amount by which dishursements from thc fund of $40 million exceeded the $34 million credited to the fund out of moneys vtfted by parliament for assistance to countries in south and south-east Asia. The transactions in the national defence cquipment account resulted in a decrease in the undisbursed balance in the account which was established under section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and continued by subsequent votes of parliament. Under the terms of the Act, the value of defence materials and supplies acquired prior to March 31, 1950, and transfcrred to members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may be credited to the account and these credits may be used in subsequent years to purchase equipment or supplies for the naval, army or air services of the Canadian forces. Dishursements from the account during the fiscal year were $24 million. No credits have been made to this account since 1956. The increase of $3 million in the railway grade crossing fund represented the amount of $5 million credited to this account and charged to expenditure less dishursements from the account. Suspense accounts Suspense accounits, which consist of balances where some uncertainty as to disposition exists and balances where the ultimate treatment is known but which are held until certain conditions are fulfilled showed a net increase of $16 million during the fiscal year. The major changes in the accounts in this category were The Budget-Appendix increases of $16 million in the replacement of materiel account, $5 million in international monetary fund-revaluation of Canadian dollar balance account, and $2 million in other suspense accounts, and decreases of $4 million in balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown assets and $2 million in Crown Assets Disposai Corporation account. The replacement of materiel account established by section il of the National Defence Act is credited with amounts realized fromn the sale of materiel that has not been declared surplus to requirements but has been authorized by the Governor in Council to be sold to other countries. The account is debited with disbursements representing amounts paid for the procurement of replace- ment materiel. During 1957-58 credits to the account exceeded disbursements by $17 million. The increase of $5 million in the international monetary fund-revaluation of Canadian dollar balance account, represented adjustments occasioned by the decreased value in ternis of Canadian dollars of Canada's subscription to the fund. The reduction of $4 million in agreements of sale of Crown assets reflected payments on outstanding agreements including $1 million each fromn Canadair Limited and Orenda Engines Limited. The decrease in Crown Assets Disposal Corporation account represented a reduction in the government's equity in the agency account of the Corporation. Unmatured debt The outstanding unmatured debt at the close of 1957-58 was $14,245 million, a decrease of $123 million from the previous year which was refiected entirely in debt payable in Canada. B. CHANGES IN PRINCIPAL ASSET CLASSIFICATIONS DURING 1957-58 The total of assets increased during the fiscal year by $2 million. The principal changes were increases of $299 million in boans to, and investments in, Crown corporations, $23 million in securities held in trust, $13 million in TOTAL ASSETS 8000 8000 6000 OTHER LOANS AND INVESTMENTS 6000 40W ~25V. AOVANCES MO EXCHNGEFN_40 v. LOANS TO CANAIM NATIONAL RAlLWNYS 2000 ------ 2000 LOANS TO NATIONAL OMIENMENTS23V. ANC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS *PPELWINARY 1357 1953 le" 1953 au 107 lm. 0,M. JUNE 17. 1958 58 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-A ppendix deferred charges, $4 million in the province debt account arising out of 1952 tax-rental agreements, $3 million in other loans and investments, $1 million in sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt and $1 million in inactive loans and investments partly offset by decreases of $252 million in current assets, $46 million in advances to the exchange fund account, $35 million in loans to national governments and $9 million in suspense accounts. Current Assets Current assets, including cash, departmental working capital advances and revolving funds and securities held in the securities investment account, totalled $695 million, $252 million less than the previous year. The changes during the fiscal year in the various accounts in this category are shown in the following table: TABLE 36 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 CIJERENÎT AssTsrs98 Increase orCURNTASEs1958 1957 De ras (Preliminary) Cash in current and special deposits. .......... ......... ... 308.3 472.2 -163.9 Cash in hands of collectors and in transit ................. ... . 160.0 132.0 28.0 Departmental working capital advances and revolving funds- Agricultural commodities stabilization account ....... 26.4 20.7 5.7 Defence production revolving fund..................... 54.4 56.3 -1.9 Miscellaneous departnental imprest and advance accounts......................................... 20.0 21.3 - 1.3 Other ................................................ 28.1 25.6 2.5 Securities investinent account ........................... .. 80.1 204.3 -124.2 Other current assets-moneys received after March 31 but applicable to the current year ........................ 17.2 14.6 2.6 694.5 947.0 -252.5 The decrease of $252 million in current assets was due to decreases of $164 million in cash in current and special deposits and $124 million in the securities investment account (which records the government's temporary holdings of its own securities including those held for the government employees purchase plan) offset in part by increases of $28 million in cash in hands of collectors and in transit, $5 million in departmental working capital advances and revolving funds and $3 million in moneys received after March 31 but applicable to the current year. Of the net increase of $5 million in departmental working capital advances and revolving funds, $6 million was due to a net increase in the agricultural commodities stabilization account and $2 million in other accounts partly offset by a decrease of $2 million in the defence production revolving fund and $1 million in miscellaneous departmental imprest and advance accounts. The increase of $6 million in the agricultural commodities stabilization account reflected the credit to the account of $6 million, representing the loss on operations for 1957-58 which with the authority of parliament will be included in the year's expenditure, and the net debit of $12 million representing the excess of purchases over sales during the year by the agricultural stabilization board. The decrease of $2 million in the defence production revolving fund reflected the amount by which credits to the account from the sale of essential materials and defence supplies exceeded the cost of acquiring, storing, maintaining and transporting such materials. The Budget-Appendix Miscellaneous departmental imprest and advance accounts record accoun- table advances to departments held on deposit in various banks in the name of the department concerned, certain travelling and imprest advances to publie officers and advance payments to contractors. During the fiscal year these ad- vances are carried as charges to the relevant appropriations; if they are not repaid or accounted for at the year-end, they are cleared from the appropriation and debited to this account and at the beginning of the new fiscal year are cleared from the account and charged to the appropriation concerned until sucli time as an accounting is made. ÀAdvances Io the exchange fund account Advances to the exchange fund account to finance the purchase of gold and foreign exchange amounted to $250 million and repayments to $296 million, resulting in a net repayment of $46 million during the year. Sinlcing fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt Sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt totalled $212 million at the end of the fiscal year 1957-58, an increase of $1 million, due mainly to an increase in the holdings of bonds of variolis Govern- ment of Canada issues payable in United States dollars. Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations amounted to $2,550 million at March 31, 1958, an increase of $299 million over the previous year. The most important changes were net increases of $108 million in boans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $95 million in advances to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, $71 million in loans to Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, $14 million in advances to Canadian Farm Loan Board, $11 million in advances to National Harbours Board, $7 million in advances to Northern Canada Power Commission, $3 million in advances to, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and a decrease of $11 million in boans and advances to the Canadian National Railways. The following table shows the changes in this category during the year: TABLE 37 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 LoAN4 TO, AND INvzsTmENTs iN, Cto WN CORPORATIONs Increase or (Preliminary) 1957 Dces - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited........................ 56.0 52.8 3.2 Bank of Canada.......................................... 5.9 5.9 ....... Canadian Arsenals Limited............................... 7.5 7.5 ....... Canadian Broadcasting Corporation....................... 27.0 27.3 -0.3 Canadian Commercial Corporation........................ 4.0 4.0 ....... Canadian Farm Loan Board.............................. 65.2 50.9 14.3 Canadien National Railways............................. 1,266.2 1,276.8 -10.6 Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited . 3.1 3.3 -0.2 Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation ....»12.6 12.3 0.3 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation................ 668.0 560.5 107.5 Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited..................... 8.2 8.2 ....... Export Credits Insurance Corporation..................... 10.0 10.0...... National Harbours Board ................................ 125.4 114.3 11.1- Northern Canada Power Commission..................... 14.6 7.7 6.9 Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation ...... 70.8 0.3 70.5 Polymer Corporation Limited............................ 30.0 30.0 ....... The St. Lawrence Seaway Authorîty...................... 172.0 77.5 94.5 Other Crown Corporations................................ 3.3 1.2 2.1 2,549.8 2,250.5 299.3 1359JUNE 17. 1958 O HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to be covered by obligations or shares of the company, amounted to $3 million during the fiscal year, bringing advances to $56 million at March 31, 1958. Advances during the year were for the construction or acquisition of buildings and equipment at Chalk River and Deep River and for the commercial products division at Ottawa. No loans were made during the year to the Canadian Broadcasting Corpor- ation. Total loans to the corporation outstanding at March 31, 1958 were $27 million. Grants were made to the corporation during the fiscal year of $43 million. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, the government advanced $233 million to the Canadian National Railway Company for capital purposes and the retirement of debt in the hands of the public. During the year the Company repaid $295 million (of which $289 million was made available from the sale of $300 million Canadian National Railway Company 4% bonds guaranteed by the Government of Canada) of current and prior year's advances and thus reduced by $62 million the amount of advances outstanding at March 31, 1958 compared with March 31, 1957. However, in addition to the advances the government purchased $22 million of 4 per cent preferred stock of the Canadian National Railways in order to assist the Company to finance additional capital expenditures. This stock is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1952, in an amount equal to three per cent of the gross revenues of the Company. Further, to cover the income deficits the Government provided the Company with $51 million during the year by way of temporary loans. Of this amount $22 million in respect of the 1957 calendar year deficit has been written off to expenditure. Therefore the total amount made available to the Company during the year was $306 million and the repayments and write-off amounted to $317 million for a net decrease in the amount outstanding at the end of the fiscal year of $11 million. Loans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the year amounted to $114 million, of which $98 million was for direct loans by the corporation and joint loans with lending institutions, $15 million for federal- provincial housing projects and $1 million for advances for house construction. Repayments totalled $6 million, of which $5 million was in respect of advances for house construction and $1 million in respect of loans for federal-provincial projects. The net increase for the fiscal year in loans to the corporation was $108 million. Loans to the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation in connection with the construction of the Northern Ontario section of the all-Canadian natural gas pipe line totalled $71 million in 1957-58. Advances to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority during the year amounted to $95 million, bringing total loans at the close of the year to $172 million. There were no repayments made on advances in the fiscal year. Other increases in loans and advances to Crown corporations included $14 million to Canadian Farm Loan Board, $11 million to National Harbours Board, $7 million to Northern Canada Power Commission and $2 million to other Crown corporations. JUNE 17. 1958 The Budget-Appendix Loans to national governments Loans to national governments totalled $ 1,444 million at the end of the fiscal year, a decrease of $35 million from the previous year. The changes in these loans are shown in the following table: TABLE 38 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 LOANs To NATIONAL GoysRxuNn p58 Increase or ______________________________________(Preliminary) 1957 Decrease(- Loans to United Kingdom- The War Appropriation (United Kingaom Financing) Act, 1942....................22.5 52.5 -30.0The United inomFacilAreetAt146 1,096.6 1,096.6 1,119.1 1,149.1 -8. Loans under the Export Credits Insurance Act, Part Hl- Belgium .......................................... 43.8 46.2 -2.4 Czechosjovakia .................................. ................ 2.0 -2.0France............................................ 167.4 175.7 -8.3Netherlands....................................... 87.2 91.8 -4.6 Norway........................................... 5.3 7.9 -2.6 808.7 323.6 -19.9 Miwcellaneous loans and advances- France-military relief credits settlement............. ................ 0.5 -0.5 interjmn credit-consolidated interest ..... 1.6 1.7 -0.1India--special loans to finance the purchase of wheat and flour from Canada ........................... 16.2................. 16.2 Netherlands-military relief and currency credit settiement ...................................... 2.3 2.9 -0.6Mi8cellaneous ....................................... 0.8 0.8 ....... 1,443.7 1,478.6 -134.9 During the year the Government of the United Kingdom reduced the balance of the $700 million interest-free boan granted under the provisions of the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942 by $30 million as arranged under the terma of an agreement entered into on August 13, 1953, between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Canada. The balance outstanding at March 31, 1958 was $23 million. Under the terms of the agreement the boan is to continue to be free of interest until December 1958. The Government of the United Kingdom deferred the payment of principal and interest on the $1, 185 million loan made under the $1,250 million credit authorized by the United Ingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946, the principal outstanding at the close of the year remaining at $1,097 million. The deferment of principal and interest was by an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom. that was approved by a 1957 Act to amend the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946. The agreement, which became effective April 29, 1957, permits the United Kingdom, in lieu of any right of waiver hitherto existing to defer after December 31, 1956, seven instalments of principal and interest under certain conditions. The first of any such deferred instalments is payable on December 31, 2001, and the others annually thereafter, in order. Repayments of advances under part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act to certain foreign countries to assist them. in purchasing goods and services in Canada amounted to $20 million for the year, as shown in the preceding table. 57071-3-87 1362 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix Other loans and investments Other loans and investments, consisting of Canada's subscription to the capital of the international monetary fund, the international bank for recon- struction and development and the international finance corporation, advances and loans to international organizations, loans to provinces and municipalities, veterans and miscellaneous loans and balances receivable, amounted to $658 million an increase of $3 million over the previous year. The balances of the main accounts in this category together with the changes during the year are shown in the following table: TABLE 39 (in millions of dollars) Balance at March 31 OTHER LOANS AND INVEsTMENTs 1958 Increase or (Preliminary) Subscriptions to capital of, working capital advances and loans to, international organizations- Canada's subscription to capital of- International monetary fund....................... 296.0 290.9 5.1 International bank for reconstruction and developm ent................................. 70.9 70.9 .............. International finance corporation................. .. 3.5 3.5 .............. Working capital advances and loans to international organizations..................................... 2.2 2.5 - 0.3 872.6 367.8 4.8 Loans to provincial governments- Alberta.............................................. 9.2 9.6 - 0.4 British Colum bia.................................... 17.9 18.7 -0.8 M anitoba............................................ 15.0 15.6 - 0.6 N ova Scotia......................................... 0.1 0.1 .............. Prince Edward Island................................ 0.1 0.1 .............. Saskatchewan........................................ 24.4 25.6 - 1.2 66.7 69.7 -3.0 Veterans Land Act advances.............................. 154.0 157.2 -3.2 Miscellaneous- Acquisition of land to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports ................. ... 6.8 2.8 4.0 Assisted passage scheme (section 69, Immigration A ct, R .S. 1952).................................. 7.1 3.9 3.2 Balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown assets............................................ 22.0 26.4 - 4.4 Construction of dock and rail facilities for Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited.............................. 2.2 2.3 -0.1 Crown Assets Disposal Corporation- Government equity in agency account............ ... 5.0 6.6 -1.6 Dominion Coal Company Limited.................... .. .5.2 4.8 0.4 Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938 ......... 2.4 2.6 -0.2 New Westminster Harbour Commission.............. 2.4 2.4 ............. O ther................................................ 11.6 8.6 3.0 64.7 60.4 4.3 658.0 655.1 2.9 The accounts of the international monetary fund are maintained in terms of United States dollars. In order to keep the government's subscription at the required amount, that portion represented by the Canadian dollar balances is revalued quarterly and any settlement required is made annually as at April 30, the end of the fund's fiscal year. The increase of $5 million during the fiscal year reflected the settlement at April 30, 1957 and the subsequent quarterly adjustments due to the revaluation of the Canadian dollar balances. The Budget-Appendix Loans to provincial governments were reduced by $3 million reflecting pay- ments by the governments concerned. Advances under the Veterans Land Act decreased by $13 million during the year. However, as there was also a decrease of $10 million in the reserve for conditional benefits under the Veterans Land Act, the net decrease was $3 million. Miscellaneous loans and investments increased by $4 million during the year. The main changes in this category were increases of $4 million in the acquisition of land to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports, $3 million in loans under the assisted passage scheme and $3 million in other accounts and decreases of $4 million in balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown assets, reflecting repayments received on previous agreements, and $2 million in the government equity in the agency account of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Securities held in trust This is a new category set up to record the security holdings of various deposit and trust and annuity, insurance and pension accounts that were formerly shown as deductions from the liability and, also, to record bonds and certified cheques held in connection with contractors' securities deposits listed under deposit and trust accounts. The balance at March 31, 1958 was $22 million. Province debt account arising out of 1952 tax-rental agreements Under the 1952 agreements, at their termination, payments were to be recalculated using revised G.N.P. and population figures based on the 1956 census. The revised G.N.P. figures did not differ materially from those originally used, but the census revealed an increased national population and thus a smaller G.N.P. per capita. This coupled with an over-estimation of population for Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, would have resulted in substantial overpayments to those provinces had the fourth quarterly instalments been paid on March 31, 1957. However, under the agreements quarterly instalments were not required on March 31, 1957, being replaced in the agreements' final year by terminal pay- ments payable not later than April 30, 1957, which were to adjust any over- or under-payments made during the period of the agreements. In the terminal settlement, all underpayments were adjusted. As those provinces that had been overpaid would have suffered severe budgetary strain had the over- payments been recovered in their entirety from the terminal payment, the federal government agreed to amend the 1952 tax agreements and make remit- tances equivalent to the full quarterly payments. Any overpayment was to be recovered by equal monthly deductions from the payments accruing to the.prov- inces concerned under the 1957 tax-sharing arrangement. The five provinces which had received overpayments subsequently signed Memoranda of Agreement amending their 1952 agreements to give effect to the above. The overpayments amounted to $5 million. During the course of the fiscal year $1 million was recovered leaving a balance of $4 million due at March 31, 1958. The outstanding overpayments bear no interest. Deferred charges This category consists of the residual balance of discounts and commissions, redemption bonuses and conversion premiums on loan flotations that have not been amortized or written off to expenditure. The balance of the unamortized bond discount and commission account increased from $64 million on March 31, 1957 to $77 million at March 31, 1958. The net increase of $13 million during the fiscal year reflected the amount by which the aggregate of payments of $42 million charged to the account for 57071-3-87J JUNE 17, 1958 1363 4 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix commissions and discounts on new loans and $5 million representing the un- amortized portion of the discount on treasury bills issued in 1957-58 and maturing in 1958-59 (which will be charged to interest on public debt in 1958-59) exceeded the annual amortization charges of $34 million. This latter amount included $8 million charged to interest on public debt representing the unamortized discount of treasury bills issued in 1956-57 and maturing in 1957-58. Unamortized portion of actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account There was no change during the fiscal year in the unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account (that portion of the government's liability in respect of the superannuation account that has not been charged to budgetary expenditure); the balance at March 31, 1958 remained at $139 million. Suspense accounts The decrease of $9 million in this category was due almost entirely to the adjustment of the government's Canadian dollar equity in the international monetary fund. The accounts of the fund are maintained in terms of United States dollars. In order to keep the government's subscription at the required amount, that portion represented by Canadian dollar balances is revalued quar- terly and any settlement required is made annually as at April 30, the end of the fund's fiscal year. The annual settlement with the fund at April 30, 1957 reduced the balance in this account from $8 million at the beginning of the fiscal year to nil at April 30, 1957. Due to the decreased value of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar, subsequent quarterly adjustments are reflected in the liability suspense category. The remainder of the decrease was due to a reduction in the temporary loans made by the Minister of Finance to the old age security fund. Parliament will be asked to authorize writing off to expenditure in 1957-58 the outstanding temporary loans of $104 million. Capital assets Capital assets which consist of assets of the government such as land, buildings, works and equipment, etc., that are charged to budgetary expendi- tures at the time of acquisition or construction, are shown on the statement of assets and liabilities at a nominal value of $1. Inactive loans and advances This category records those loans and advances which are not currently revenue-producing or realizable. At March 31, 1958 the balance was $91 million and included the loan of $49 million to China under the Export Credits Insurance Act, loans of $24 and $7 million made to Roumania and Greece in 1919-20 and 1920-21 and advances of $11 million in respect of the implementation of guarantees (Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited), an increase of $1 million over 1956-57. Reserve for losses on realization of assets There was no change in the reserve for losses on realization of assets during the year; the balance at March 31, 1958 was $546 million, unchanged from the end of the previous year. C. INCREASE IN NET DEBT The budgetary deficit of $39 million for the fiscal year 1957-58 plus an adjustment of $1 million in respect of prior years' transactions resulted in an increase of $40 million in the net debt of Canada from $11,008 million at March 31, 1957 to $11,048 million at March 31, 1958. JUNE 17, 1958 V The Budget-Appendix The adjustment of $1 million in respect of prior years' transactions reflected increases in the recorded liabilities in the civil service insurance, returned soldiers insurance and veterans insurance accounts of the amount by which these balances were below the actuarial liability as at March 31, 1957, as calculated by the Department of Insurance. 5. THE CASH POSITION The government's cash position is affected not only by the budgetary trans- cations explained in some detail in preceding sections but also by non-budgetary transactions and changes in the government's outstanding unmatured debt. Although there was a budgetary deficit of $39 million in 1957-58, the govern- ment's bank balances declined by $164 million during the same period. This decrease was the net result of the budgetary deficit of $39 million, a cash require- ment of $124 million for non-budgetary transactions and a reduction of $1 million in outstanding unmatured debt (after taking into account transactions in the securities investment and sinking fund accounts). Non-budgetary receipts and credits relate to transactions which result in increases or decreases in the government's assets and liabilities and do not appear in what might be called the government's income account for the fiscal year nor do they enter into the calculation of the annual budgetary surplus or deficit. However, in considering the full scope of the government's financial operations and in measuring their effect on the government's cash position and their impact on the economy, non-budgetary as well as budgetary transactions must be 'taken into account. The increases or decreases in the government's assets and liabilities have been described in detail in the section entitled "Statement of Assets and Liabil- ities of Canada". On the assets side the non-budgetary transactions consist, for the most part, of loans and advances to, and repayments by, Crown corpora- tions and other government agencies and funds (including the old age security fund), national, provincial and municipal governments, international organ- izations, veterans and other borrowers. On the liabilities side they relate mainly to receipts and payments in connection with the many deposit and trust accounts, and annuity, insurance and pension funds held or administered by the govern- ment. The following statement summarizes the non-budgetary transactions for 1957-58 and indicates how they, together with the budgetary transactions and changes in the unmatured debt position, affected the government's cash position. For purposes of comparison, the corresponding figures for 1956-57 are also shown. 1366 The Budget-Appendix HOUSE 0F COMMONS TABLE 40 (in millions of dollars) CHANGES IN CASH POSnsoN1 NoN-BTJDGETAHY Rrcrn'PrS AND CREDITS (excluding unmatured debt transactions)- Repaymenîs of boans, investments and working capital advances (net)- Exehange fund.............................................. Canadian National llailways................................. United Kinadom (1942 boan)................................. United Kingdom (1946 boan)................................. Other national governments ................................. Provincial governments ..................................... Veterans Land Act ......................................... Other..................................................... Net goveromont annuities account receipts- J-½cmium receipts less payments to beneficiaries ............... Govornment contribution to maintain reserve ................. Interest paid by governiment................................. Net insurance and pension account receipts- Lmployee contributions less payments to beneficiaries .......... Goveroment contributions................................... Interest paid by government................................. Net reduction in temporary boans to old age security fund .......... Not reccipts in sundry other accounts............ ................ Reduction in unamortized portion of superannuation account liability. Addition to reserve for possible losses on assets.................... NON-BUJDOETARY DîSBIunSEasrNIS AND CHARGES (excluding unmatured debt transactions)- Loans, investments and working capital advancas (net)- Agrietîltural commorlitins stshilizstinn acenunt ................ Atomie Energy of Canada Limnited .......................... Canadsan Farm Loan Board................................. Central Mortgage and Ilousing Corporation ................... Government of India ....................................... National Harbours Board ... :................................ Northern Canada Power Commission ........................ Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation ............... The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority......................... Other...................................................... Net payments from special defence accounts ...................... Net payments from Colomnbo plan fund .......................... Net increase in unamortized boan flotation costs ................... Net decrease in current and demand liabilities .................... Net decrease in reserve for conditional benefits- Veterans Land Act ......................................... Net dishursements from sundry other aceounts.................... Net amount available from, or reqnired for (-), non-budgetary trans- actions ........................................................ Add budgetary surplus or dedurt budgetary deficit ..................... Overaîl cash available for debt reduction or increase in cash balances .... Overaîl cash requirements to be financeil by an increase in debt or de- crease in cash balances (- )................................... Neticrease or decrease (-) in unmiatured debt outstanding in the hands of the public- Unmatured debt ............................................... SSecurities investment account ...... ............................. Sinking funils................................................... Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank balances.... Fiscal year ended March 31 1958 15 (Preliminary) 195 46.0 10.6 10.0 21.1 1.0 13.5 3.5 127.7 18.7 1.2 38.4 58.3 32.9 129.8 59.3 222.0 1.5 37.7 447.2 5.7 3.2 14.3 107.5 16.2 11.1 6.9 70.5 94.5 15.2 345.1 7.7 5.5 12.7 128.1 10.3 61.8 -71.0 -172.1 30.0 15.5 25.7 3.4 11.4 14.1 -143.0 22.8 36.3 39.1i 28.2 120.9 50.9 200.0 48.5 40.6 50.0 50.0 305.2 -12.3 9.1 9.3 -4.1 7.2 0.3 0.3 56.0 24.7 90.3 44.4 - 13.4 -33.4 7.6 36.7 571.2 139.4 -124.0 - 39.4 - 163.4 -123.3 124.2 -1.4 -0.5 -163.9 165.8 257.5 423.3 -1,039.2 517.3 (1) -521.9 -98.6 (') Less than $50,000. JUNE 17, 1958 13 The Budget-Appendix As the table shows, non-budgetary receipts and credits for 1957-58 (exclud- ing unmatured debt transactions) totalled $447 million while non-budgetary dis- bursements and charges (also excluding unmatured debt transactions) amounted to $571 million, resulting in a net amount of $124 million required for non- budgetary transactions. As there was a budgetary deficit of $39 million, $163 million was required to be financed by an increase in unmatured debt or a decrease in cash balances. In 1956-57 there was $166 million available from non-budgetary transactions and this together with the budgetary surplus of $258 million made $424 million available for debt reduction or increase in cash balances. Non-budgetary receipts and credits totalled $447 million in 1957-58. Repayments of loans, investments and working capital advances were $128 million and included $30 million from the Government of the United Kingdom, $21 million from other national governments, and $11 million from Canadian National Railways (loans and advances of $284 million together with purchases of $22 million of 4 per cent preferred stock of the company were more than offset by repayments by the company of $295 million, of which $289 million was from the proceeds of a bond issue to the public, and $22 million that was charged to budgetary expenditure in respect of the company's 1957 operating deficit). Net government annuities account receipts were $58 million and net insurance and pension account receipts were $222 million. Temporary loans to the old age security fund were reduced by $2 million. Such loans outstanding at the first of the year were $2 million and during 1957-58 temporary loans to the fund amounted to $102 million. Parliament will be asked to authorize writing off to budgetary expenditure in 1957-58 the outstanding temporary loans of $104 million. Net receipts and credits in various other accounts amounted to $38 million. Non-budgetary disbursements and charges amounted to $571 million. Loans, investments and working capital advances totalled $345 million and included $6 million to the agricultural commodities stabilization account in connection with the purchase and sale of agricultural commodities after allowing for a charge to budgetary expenditure of $6 million, which parliament will be asked to authorize, in respect of the loss on operations for 1957-58, $14 million to Canadian Farm Loan Board for the purpose of making loans to farmers, $107 million to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making housing loans, $16 million to the Government of India for the purchase of Canadian wheat, $70 million to Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for financing the Northern Ontario section of the natural gas pipe line, and $95 million to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for the dredging and construction of the seaway. Other non-budgetary disbursements and charges totalled $226 million and included $8 million for net payments from the special defence accounts and $128 million for the net decrease in current and demand liabilities (such as outstanding cheques and outstanding matured debt). In summary, unmatured debt outstanding in the hands of the public was reduced $1 million after taking into account transactions in the securities in- vestment and sinking fund accounts. As budgetary and non-budgetary trans- actions required financing in the amount of $163 million, cash balances on deposit with the banks were drawn down by $164 million. 6. THE PUBLIC DEBT Gross and net debt During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958 the gross publie debt increased by $42 million to $18,368 million. The Budget-Appendix This increase was made up of a decrease of $123 million in unmatured debt, and an increase of $165 million in other liabilities. The government's recorded net assets increased during the year by $2 million. The net debt thus increased by $40 million to $11,048 million. GROSS & NET DEBT BILLIONS 0F DOLLARS FISCAL YEARS ENDED MARCH 31 [2 NET DEBT AS AT MARCH 31 The following table shows the relationship between the gross public debt, the unmatured debt and the net debt at the end of each fiscal year, 1948-49 to 1957-58 inclusive. TABLE 41 STATEMENT 0FP PuBLuc DEBT, UNmATuiED DEBT, RECORI)FD AssETs AND NET DEBT O? CANADA (in millions of dollars) Grosspuble det unrease or Gros pblc dbtLess decrease (-) As at March 31 recorded Net debt in net debt Unmatured Other Total net assets during debt liabilities fiscal year 1949 ...................... 15,585.0 1,365.4 16,950.4 5,174.3 11,776.1 -595.5 1950 ...................... 15,188.1 1,562.7 16,750.8 5,106.1 11,644.6 -131.5 1951 ...................... 15,026.8 1,896.5 16,923.3 5,490.0 11,433.3 -211.3 1952 ...................... 14,695.4 2,562.3 17,257.7 6,072.4 11,185.3 -M4.0 1953 ...................... 14,810.5 3,108.0 17,918.5 6,756.8 11,161.7 -23.6 1954 ...................... 14.576.2 3,347.0 17,923.2 6,807.3 11,115.9 -45.8 1955 ...................... 14,496.5 3,455.0 17,951.5 6,688.4 11,263.1 147.2 1956 ...................... 15,407.6 3,716.6 19,124.2 7,843.8 11,280.4 17.3 1957..................... 14,368.4 3,957.8 18,326.2 7,318.5 11,007.7 -272.7 1958 (Preliminary) ........ 14,245.1 1 4,123.2 118,368.3 7,320.0 11,048.3 40.6 'PRELIMINARY 1368 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 17, 1958 1 The Budget-Appendix Unmatured debi The total unmatured debt of Canada at March 31, 1958 was $14,245 million. This was $123 million less than that at the end of the previous fiscal year. During the same period the government's holdings of securities in the sinking fund and securities investment accounts decreased by $122 million, resulting in a net decrease of $1 million in the amount of outstanding unmatured debt. Summary of security issues and redemptions during the year During the fiscal year 1957-58 the government issued securities payable in Canadian dollars in the principal amount of $2,527 million (excluding the re- funding of treasury bills wbich mature periodically) and redeemed or converted issues in the amount of $2,650 million (including the rédemption of treasury bills in the amount of $100 million) all payable in Canadian dollars. Redemptions were financed as f ollows: (in millions of dollars) By issue of Canada savings bonds, series 12 (net) ................... 1,177 By refunding and conversion .................................... 1,350 By available cash.............................................. 123 2,650 The net decrease in unmatured debt as a resuit of these transactions was $123 million. There was no change during the year in the unmatured debt payable in U.S. dollars and sterling. At March 31, 1958 the amount payable in New York was $300 million and thé amount payable in London was $52 million. Details of redemptions and new issues of securities during the fiscal year are set out in the following tables: TABLE 42 REDEMPTON or' DEBT DunixGN FîscAL YzAa END)jD MAucH 31, 1958 MATURTT Interest Where Amnount rate payable per cent June 15, 1957......................................... 21 Canada 150,000,000 October 1, 1957...................................... 2 Canada 700,000,000 December 15, 1957........................................... 21 Canada 250,000,000 May 1, 1958(1) .............................................. 2 Canada 224,522,000 May 1, 1958(l) .............................................. 3 Canada 175,478,000 Canada savings bonds series 2-11 ............................. 2-31 Canada 1,050,249,700 Treasury bis.............................................. varions Canada 100,000,000 2,650,249,700 (1) Converted to 3% bonds dated December 15, 1957 due Denember 15, 1960. Net sales of Canada savings bonds, series 12 (which were withdrawn from sale on December 31, 1957) amounted to $1,177 million and net rédemptions of Canada savings bonds, séries 2 to il (of which series 2 matured on November 1, 1957) were $1,050 million. The net increase during the year for ail series was $127 million and the amount outstanding at March 31, 1958 was $2,547 million compared with $2,420 million at the close of the previous fiscal year. The amount of treasury bills outstanding at the end of the fiscal year was $1,525 million or $100 million less than at March 31, 1957. 0 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix TABLE 43 NEw SECUIRIrsES ISSUED DUsuNG YEAn ENDED MARCH 31, 1958 Price Yield at Total Renewals or Amount DSfIONto prcet amount conversion issued DsRTiNgv-govern- included in for ment ment isud amount issued cash per cent $$ Issued to general public- Bonds 3% Oct. 1/57-Oct. 1/58 ......... 98.00 5.08 400,000,000 400,000,000.............. Bonds 3% Oct. 1/57-Oct. 1/59 ......... 96.00 5.13 300,000,000 300,000,000.............. Bonds 3% Dec. 15/57-Oct. 1/59... 98.40 3.93 250,000,000 250,000,000.............. Bonds 3% Dec. 13/57-Dec. 15/60. 97.35 3.95 400,000,000 400,000,000........ ...... Canada savings bonds serios 12, 3i', to 4 '% Nov. 1/57-Nov. 1/70 ......... 99.00 4.56 1,176,940,400............... 1,176,940,400 2,526,940,400 1,350,000,000 1,176,940,400 Interest rates During the first five months of the year interest rates generally continued to risc and reached a peak during August. Subsequently, rates dropped con- siderably and continued the downward trend to the end of the fiscal year. The average interest rate on the government's unmatured debt at March 31, 1958 was 2.98 per cent compared with 3.05 per cent at the end of the previous fiscal year and 2.60 per cent at March 31, 1951. AVERAGE INTEREST RATE ON 1JNMATURED DEBT PER CENT 6AS AT MARCH 31 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1I 1l 1 III1 1 10 1931 * PRELIMINARY 1955 I958'. Treasury bill yields reflected a trend similar to that of general interest rates. The yield on three-month bis on April 5, 1957 was 3.69 per cent. In August 1957 the yield rose to a higli of 4.08 per cent declining to a low of 2.27 per cent on the last issue of the fiscal year. The following table shows the high and low yields together with the yield on the hast issue for the fiscal year 1947-48 to 1957-58 inclusive on three-month bis: PER CENT JUNE 17, 1958 TABLE 44 The Budget-Appendia, TREASuRY BILL YIELDS Three-month bills FISCAL YEAR Hligh Low Last issue per cent per cent per cent 1947-48..................................................... .41 .41 .41 1948-49..................................................... .45 .41 .45 1949--50..................................................... .51 .49 .51 1950-51..................................................... .75 .51 .75 1951-52..................................................... .94 .75 .94 1952-53 .................................................... 1.52 .96 1.52 1953-54 .................................................... 1.97> 1.51 1.59 1954-55 .................................................... 1.62 .78 1.13 1955-56 .................................................... 2.64 1.08 2.64 1956-57.................. .................................. 3.81 2.40 3.70 1957-58 .................................................... 4.08 2.27 2.27 Indirect debt or contingent liabilities In addition to the direct debt set out in the statement of assets and liabilities the government has assumed certain indirect or contingent obligations. These consist of securities of the Canadian National Railways, guaranteed as to prin- cipal and interest, or as to interest only, and a number of miscellaneous guaran- tees, the chief of which are the guarantee of insured boans made by chartered banks and other approved lending institutions under the National llousing Act, 1954, deposits maintained by the chartered banks in the Bank of Canada, bank advances to the Canadian Wheat Board, advances under the Export Credits Insurance Act and bank loans under the Farmn Improvement Loans Act. 'The government's liability under its guarantee of insured loans under the National Housing Act, 1954 was $1,395 million at December 31, 1957 compared with $122 million at December 31, 1954 and $1,061 million at December 31, 1956. The following tables give details of the bonds and debenture stocks guaran- teed by the government, and also indicate the nature and approximate extent of the government's other guarantees and contingent liabilities: TABLE 45 BON.DS AND DEBExTU1UE STociKs GUARANTEED B-T TEE GOVERNMEENT AS AT MAlIC 31, 1958 îneet Estimated Date of Maturity Issue Ineet amountrate outstanding per cent 8 JuIy 20, 1958 ............. Canadian Northern .............................. 3j 5,500,208 Jan. 15, 1959 ............. Canadian National ........ ....................... 3 35,000,000 Mey 4, 1960 ............. Canadien Northern Alberta...................... si 316,856 May 19, 1961 ............. Canadien Northern Ontario...................... 3j 2,069,805 Jan. 1, 1962 ............. Grand Trunk Pacifiec............................. 3 26,465,130 Jan. 1, 1962 ............. Grand Trunk Pacific ............................. 4 7,999,074 Feb. 1, 1963 ............. Canadien National ............................... 24 250,000,000 Jan. 3, 1966 ............. Canadieni National ............................... 3 35,000,000 Jan. 2, 1967 ............. Canadien National ............................... 21 50,0)00,000 Sept. 15, 1969 ............. Canadien National ............................... 21 70,000,000 Jan. 16, 1971 ............. Canadien National ............................... 2' 40,000,000 Feb. 1, 1974 ............. Canadien National ............................... 31 200,000,000 June 15, 1975 ............. Canadien National ............................... 21 6,000,000 Feb. 1, 1981 ............. Canadien National ............................... 4 300,00)0,000 Perpetual.................. Grank Trunk debenture stock.................... 5 51,190 Perpetuel...... ............ Grand Trunk debenture stock.................... 4 5,054 1,028,407,317 The Budget-A ppendix HOUSE 0F COMMONS TABLE 46 Amount OTHER OUTSTANDING GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENT outstanding LIABILITIES (Preliminary) Deposits maintained by the chartered banks in the Bank of Canada (Mardi 31, 1958) ............. Loans maintained by approved lending institutions under National Housing Acts prior to 1954 Act.... Loans made by lenders under Part IV of the National Housing Act, 1954, for home extensions and improvements (December 31, 1957) ............. Insured loans made by approved lenders under the National Housing Act, 1954 (December 31, 1957) Guarantees to owners of returns from moderate rentai housing projects ............................ Guarantees under the Export Credits Insurance Act Part I (March 31, 1958)...................... Guarantees under the Exports Credits Insurance Act Part II (March 31, 1958)..................... Loans made by chartered banks under the Farm Improvement Loans Act (March 31, 1958) ....... Loans made by chartered banks under The Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act (March 31, 1958) ..................................... Loans made by chartered banks under the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, 1956 (March 31, 1958) ..................................... Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (March 31, 1958) ..................................... Loans made by chartered banks under the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, 1951 (Mardi 31, 1958) ..................................... Loans made by chartered banks to Canadian Wheat Board (Mardi 31, 1958)...................... Loans made by chartered banks under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act (March 31, 1958) ........ 579,472,661 Indeterminate 3,443,083 1,394,635,167 Indeterminate 64,545,993 3,825,000 39,117,850 677,847 941,821 72,773 283 103,065,754 21,855,285 JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix 7. SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED TABLES REVENUES EXPENDITuRES LOANS AND) AD)vÂNcEs AND INVESTMENTS UNMATtTRED DEBT HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Appendix STATEMENT OF REVENUES FOR LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars) TAx REvENUES- Income tax- Personal (1)......................... Corporation (1)...................... On dividends, interest, etc. going abroad ............................ Excise taxes- Sales taxes (1) (2).......... ........ Other excise taxes- Autom obiles...................... Beverages (soft drinks)............ Candy and chewing gum.......... Cigarettes, cigars and tobacco..... Electrical appliances.............. F urs .............................. Jewellery, watches, ornaments, etc. Matches and lighters.............. Television sets, radios, tubes and phonographs.................... Tires and tubes................. Toilet preparations............ .. Trunks, bags, luggage, etc......... W ines ............................ Sundry commodities.............. Licences, interest and miscel- laneous........................ L ess refunds....................... Custom s duties....................... Excise duties- Spirits, malt and beer............... Cigarettes, cigars and tobacco ...... Less refunds......................... Succession duties.................. Tax on insurance premiums........... Miscellaneous tax revenue...:........ Total tax revenues.......... NON-TAx REVENUES- Post office-net postal revenue ........ Return on investments................ O ther................................ Total non-tax revenues...... TOTAL REVENUE............ 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 Pr1i-inary 1,187.7 1,191.2 53.8 2,432.7 587.3 94.7 11.7 12.8 113.2 5.1 3.7 7.2 1.4 16.8 11.4 7.1 3.5 2.2 6.4 0.4 -1.6 296.0 407.3 133.0 97.0 -3.3 226.7 39.1 13.8 0.7 4,003.6 1,183.4 1,020.6 61.3 2,265.3 572.2 73.2 8.2 9.9 114.5 0.4 0.1 4.8 0.9 21.5 8.6 5.2 0.4 2.4 2.3 0.4 -0.8 252.0 397.2 130.1 100.8 -4.4 226.5 44.8 14.5 1.0 3,773.5 1,185.6 1,027.7 66.2 2,279.5 641.5 76.2 8.7 9.2 126.9 ............ ............ 5.0 0.9 22.8 0.8 5.6 ............ 2.5 2.1 0.4 -0.4 260.7 481.2 141.9 110.4 -2.9 249.4 66.6 15.5 1.3 3,995.7 1,400.5 1,268.3 76.4 2,745.2 717.1 79.7 9.0 9.8 132.3 ............ 1,499.2 1,234.8 64.3 2,798.3 703.2 72.3 0.6 0.7 142.4 ............ 6.1 5.3 0.8 0.9 19.0 ............ 6.1 ............ 2.6 2.3 0.5 -1.1 267.1 549.1 153 4 121.1 -3.1 271.4 79.7 16.7 1.6 4,647.9 16.9 ........... 6.3 ........... 2.7 1.4 0.6 -0.7 249.4 498.1 171.8 131.6 -3.3 800.1 71.6 0.1 1.4 4,622.2 111.0 131.3 137.4 145.8 152.9 152.1 134.0 149.3 206.6 169.5 129.6 84.7 117.6 106.2 102.5 392.7 350.0 4,396.3 4,123.5 404.3 4,400.0 (1) Excluding tax credited to the old age security fund- 458.6 5,106.5 424.9 5,047.1 Preliminary 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 2% personal income tax............ 90.7 2% corporation income tax......... 55.6 2% sales tax....................... 146.8 100.9 102.5 125.0 135.0 46.0 53.3 67.3 60.7 143.1 160.4 179.3 175.8 (1) Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks as well as transfers to the old age security fund. 1374 JUNE 17, 1958 13 The Budget-Appendix STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENTS AND MAJOR CATEGORIES FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars) 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 Preliminary 1957-58 Agriculture- Administration and general........... 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 Science service........................ 8.2 8.5 8.6 9.8 10.6 Experimental farms service ........... .. 8.6 9.6 10.6 11.9 13.8 Production service.................... 10.3 10.8 11.2 12.3 12.9 Marketing service.................... 5.0 10.3 7.8 6.6 7.4 Rehabilitation and reclamation pro- jects.............................. 14.8 12.6 11.9 13.6 12.4 Freight assistance on western feed grains.............................. 17.0 19.0 16.0 17.5 17.5 Premium on hog carcasses suitable for export to United Kingdom.......... 4.7 5.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 Net operating loss-agricultural com- modities stabilization account....... 37.7 3.1 5.8 5.0 6.0 Deficit-prairie farm emergency fund............. ............ .8.4 ............ 5.9 Other expenditure.................... 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 108.4 81.8 88.2 84.6 94.7 Atomic Energy......................... 12.7 15.0 19.0 21.9 21.6 Auditor General's Office................ 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- Payment from the consolidated revenue fund of amounts equal to taxes col- lected under the Excise Tax Act in respect of radio and television sets and equipment...................... 16.7 20.8 23.1 19.3 16.8 Grant towards the anticipated opera- ting deficit and capital expenditures of the radio broadcasting and televi- sion services........................ 6.3 6.3 6.3 18.3 24.4 International service.................. 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.8 25.0 29.2 81.2 39.3 48.0 Office of the Chief Electoral Officer..... 5.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 13.6 Citizenship and Immigration- Administration and general........... 1.7 1.7 2.8 2.2 2.5 Immigration branch.................... 7.3 8.3 8.0 18.6 22.0 Indian Affairs branch................. 16.5 18.0 21.5 23.7 27.9 25.5 28.0 82.8 44.5 52.4 Civil Service Commission.............. 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.2 Defence Production- Administration and general........... 10.1 9.2 9.6 10.5 10.2 Capital assistance to defence industry. 37.8 9.7 6.5 10.0 4.7 47.9 18.9 16.1 20.5 14.9 External Affairs........................ 10.0 11.7 13.0 14.4 15.8 Membership in commonwealth and international organizations.......... 2.9 3.1 3.1 5.8 4.3 Assistance to other countries and inter- national organizations................ 32.8 29.0 28.8 40.0 40.1 46.7 48.8 44.9 60.2 60.2 Finance- Departmental administration and gen- eral................................ 6.4 6.2 6.7 8.0 7.3 Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury............................ 13.7 14.9 14.9 16.0 17.5 Interest on public debt................ 476.1 477.9 492.6 520.2 539.3 Cost of issuing new loans and annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions........................ 19.1 23.6 21.1 13.4 27.2 Servicing of public debt............... 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 Subsidiestoprovinces................ 20.1 20.4 20.3 20.6 20.6 Compensation to provinces- Tax-rental agreements, 1952 Act..... 309.2 327.4 319.6 365.9 ............ Tax-sharing arrangements, 1956 Act ......... ............ ............ ............ 353.3 Transfer of certain public utility tai receipts, under tax-rental agree- m ents............,............... 6.8 7.3 7.9 6.6 7.4 Transitional grant to Newfoundland... 4.8 3,.9 3.1 2.3 1.4 6 HOUSE 0F COMMONS The Budget-Appendix STATEMENT 0F EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENTS AND MAJOR CATEGORIES FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued (in millions of dollars) 1953-54 11954-55 1955-56 1956-57 Preliminary 1957--58 Finance-concluded Government contributions with respect to the superannuation account- General ........................ Special ......................... Reduction in actuarial deficiency in the superannuation account...... Grants to municipalities ini lieu of taxes on federal property............... Grants to universities.............. Grant to Canada Council .......... Implemnentation of guarantees (Ming Sunig Industrial Co. Ltd.) ......... Premium, discount and exchange.. Commodity Prices Stabilization Cor- poration Limited ................ Relief re Hurricane Hazel .......... Provision for reserve for losses on realization of assets .............. Fîsheries........................... Governor General and Lieutenant-Gov- ernors............................. Insurance .......................... Justice............................. Office of the Commissioner of Peni- tentiaries....................... Labour ............................ Government annuities-amount re- quired to inaintain reserve...... Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940- Administration and general...... Government contribution ......... Legislation- House of Commons................ Library of Parliament.............. Senate ........................... Mines and Tecbnical Surveys ......... Dominion Coal Board.............. Emergency gold mining assistance .. National Defence- General .......................... Defence forces, Army, Navy and Air services ........................ Mutual aid to NATO countries... Defence research and development .... Pensions -payments under defence services pension act .............. Government contribution to perma- nent services pension account .... National Film Board ................ National Health and Welfare ......... General bealth grants.............. Family allowances ................ Old age assistance, blind and disabled persons allowances ............... IJnemployment assistance .......... Deficit-old age security fund ... National Research Council ........... National Revenue................... 1.6 0.3 50.0 971.3 9.3 0.4 0.4 5.8 9.2 15.0 9.6 0.1 26.1 31.8 67.6 4.2 0.3 1.1 5.6 13.0 10.3 15.2 88.5 0.3 1,424.3 300.2 40.8 5.1 35.2 1,805.9 3.0 28.0 29.2 350.1 23.2 .... . 5 . 15.4 49.9 380. ... 31.5. 3.1. 7.0 5.4 5.5 31.6 40.8 50.0 9.5 16.0 33.8 44.3 17.5 16.6 100.0 3.8 1 ....... 1.41::....... 0.1 . 940 11.2 0.4 0.5 5.9 10.5 16.4 9.4 0.4 28.3 31.7 69.8 5.0 0.3 1.4 6.7 16.4 11.8 15.5 48.7 0.3 1,313.8 260.0 50.0 5.2 36.7 1,666.0 3.4 28.6 31.6 366.5 24.2 45.8 496. 7 15.7 55.0 12.4 0.4 0.5 6.6 10.7 17.3 9.0 26.6 33.9 69.5 5.1 0.3 1.4 6.8 17.6 11.3 9.3 88.2 0.5 1,464.9 175.0 64.3 5.3 40.1 1,750.1 4.1 29.1 33.5 382.5 29.5 63.3 587.9 16.1 56.1 50.0 1,152.8 13.8 0.4 0.5 7.0 12.0 19.0 9.5 29.0 37.4 75.9 5.4 0.3 1.5 7.2 17.5 9.7 8.7 85.9 0.5 1,504.1 133.6 69.3 5.6 46.3 1,759.4 5.0 33.5 36.3 397.5 30.5 7.9 56.0 561.7 19.0 61.8 1, 1 86.8 16.4 0.4 0.6 7.2 12.7 19.9 11.2 1.2 32.5 37.8 82.7 5.0 0.3 1.5 6.8 18.7 8.8 8.6 86.1 0.8 1,415.1 118.4 78.7 5.8 49.7 1,668.5 4.0 38.7 34.6 437.9 39.7 8.2 103.9 668.0 21.6 67.7 JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix STATEMENT 0F EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENTS AND MAJOR CATEGORIES FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Concluded (in millions of dollars) 1953--54 1954-55 1955--56 1956-57 Preliminary 1957-58 Northern Affairs and National Resources 19.3 20.2 24.6 37.0 48.6 Post Office............................. 113.6 123.6 127.4' 140.0 153.3 Privy Council including Prime Minister's Office................................ 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 Public Archives and National Library... 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 Public Printing and Stationery ...... 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.2 3.3 Public Works........................... 101.5 112.7 126.0 140.5 156.6 Trans-Canada highway contributions.. 13.4 18.1 16.1 24.8 49.4 114.9 180.8 142.1 165.8 206.0 Royal Canadian Mounted Police .... 33.9 35.5 36.6 43.4 47.4 Secretary of State....................... 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.5 4.0 Trade and Commerce.................. ' 16.5 17.5 17.6 23.6 23.7 Assistance re storage costs on grain .... ............ ............ 18.9 31.8 33.3 Trnpr-16.5 17.5 86.5 65.4 57.0 Administration and general .............. 4.2 7.0 8.1 8.3 8.7 Canal services........................ 8.4 7.8 8.3 8.2 8.6 Marine services ....................... 20.3 21.3 20.6 26.9 32.7 Railway and steamship services .... 20.4 26.7 15.3 15.2 12.7 Mariti.me freight rates act........... 10.5 10.5 11.0 12.5 12.6 Air services........................... 41.4 44.7 57.3 70.5 90.5 Canadian Maritime Commission .... 4.2 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.3 Deflits- Canadian National Railways........ ............ 28.8.............. ............ 22.0 Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited............... 0.6 0.6 0.1 ...... 0.6 Prince Edward Island cmr ferry and terminals......................... 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 N or th S yd n ey-Port-aux-Baques ferry and terminals................ 2.2 2.2 2.4 5.4 6.0 Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry ................. ............ ............ 0.3 0.3 Non-active assets- National Harbours Board............ 4.2 3.9 3.0 4.1 4.8 Vtrn far-118.0 159.5 185.0 158.2 206.6 Administration and general .............. 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.6 Pensions ............................. 127.6 128.8 130.7 130.3 145.6 Treatinent and welfare services .... 46.5 47.9 47.6 50.8 56.4 Hospital accommodation, additions, alterations and improvements .... 4.1 3.9 3.5 4.6 3.3 Veterans allowances, treatment allow- ances and other benefits............. 32.8 34.2 44.0 45.8 53.2 War service gratuities and re-establish- ment credits........................ 8.9 6.0 3.6 2.4 1.8 Soldier settlement and veterans land acts............................. 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.6 Provision for reserve for conditîioa benefits under veterans land act ... 8.5 8.9 8.8 6.8 5.2 538.7 540.1 548.5 551.5 576.7 TOIAL ExpzNDITTIBE.................4,350.5 4,275.4 4.433.1 4 849f 0 5 086 1 .1 1 . HOUSE 0F COMMONS Th~e Budget-Appendix ANNUAL CHANGES IN LOANS AND INVESTMENTS FOR TIIE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars) LoANs TO, AND INVE5TMENTS IN, CROWN CORP'ORATIONS Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation .. Canadian Commercial Corporation.. Canadian Farm Loan Board........... Canadian National Railways.......... Canadian National (West Indies) Steam- ships Limited ...................... Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation........................ Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora- tion ............................... Commodity Prices Stabilization Corpo- ration.............................. National Harbours Board............. Northern Canada Power Commission... Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation........................ Polymer Corporation Limited......... The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority... Other Crown corporations............. LOANS TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS United Kingdom- The War Appropriation (U.K. Financ- ing) Act, 1942 ..................... The United Kingdomi Financial Agree- ment Act, 1946 ................... Export Credits Insurance Act .......... India-special loans to finance the pur- chase of wheat and flour from Canada. Other ............................... OTHIER LOANS AND INVESTMENTS Subscriptions to capital of, working capital advances and lbans to, international organizations- Canada's subscription to capital of- International monetary fund .... international Finance Corporation.. Working capital advances and loans to international organizations... Loans to provincial governments .... Miscellaneous- Balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown assets............ Veterans land act advances .......... Other.............................. Sinking fund and other investments held for retirement of unmatured debt.. Net total of changes in boans and in- vestments ....................... 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 Preliminary 1957-58 7.2 4.7 3.7 Cr. 18.1 0.4 98.8 Or. 1.2 Or. 0.6 Or. 0.4 Or. 3.0 Cr. 2.8 88.7 Or. 4.9 11.7 8.4 4.0 4.7 170.7 0.2 4.0 10.4 0.4 OrI. 0.4 Cr. 4.0 1.3 0.4 Or. 24.1 30.0 14.8 23.6 2.9 20.2 0-4 205.0 9.1 Or. 0.1 Or. 2.0 9.3 172.1 Or. 0.3 4.3 Or. 4.1 7.2 0.3 0.3 56.0 Or. 0.1 252.0 3:. . 3.2 Or. 0.3 14.3 Or. 10.6 Or. 0.2 0.3 107.5 11.1 6.9 70.5 94.5 2.1 299.3 16.2 Cr. 1.2 Cr. 92.5 Or. 71.3 Or. 71.0 Or. 71.2 Or. 34.9 .O..... r. 29.1 6.3 Or. 8.8 5.1 ... ... ... .. ... ... . . ... ... .. 3.5. .......... .. . .. . . 1.7 .. . . . . . 0.8 Or. 0.3 Or. 3.4 Or. 3.4 Or. 3.6 Or. 3.4 Or. 3.0 8.5 Or. 8.0 11.8 7.8 Or. 4.4 Or. 0.1 0.9 Or. 0.6 Or. 3.8 Or. 3.2 Or. 0.7 3.6 2.2 2.8 8.7 4.3 Or. 34.3 16.1 Or. 1.1 2.9 74.2 89.0 20.0 1.4 74.7 1Cr. 268.7 1378 268.774.7 jCr. JUNE 17, 1958 The Budget-Appendix UNMATURED DEET AND TREASURY BILLS AS AT MARCU 31, 1958 AND THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREON Date Rate Wee Amount Annualof Description pr We of interest maturity cent paabe an charges 1958, May 1 .. Nov. 1 .... 1959, Jan. 1 Oct. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 .... 1960, June 1 Nov. 1 .... Dec. 15 ... 1962, Feb. 1 .... Aug. 1... 1963, July 1 July 1 .. Aug. 1 .... Aug. 1 .... Oct. 1 1965, Nov. I.... 1966, Sept. 1 .... Nov. 1 .... 1967, Nov. 1.... 1968, June 15.... 1969, May 1.... 1970, Nov. 1 .... 1974, Sept. 1 .... 1975, Sept. 15 ... 1976, June 1 1978, Jan. 15 .... 1979, Oct. I 1998, Mar. 15 .. Perpetual ... Various ... Loan of 1953 ............... T.9 Loan of 1955 ............... T.14 Loan of 1957 ............... T.18 Canada savings bonds 1948.... .S.3 Fifth victory boan 1943 ... L.7 Loan of 1957 ............... T.19 Loan of 1957 ............... T.20 Canada savings bonds 1949.... SA4 Sixth victory loan 1944...L.9 Canada savinge bonds 1950.... .S.5 Loan of 1957 ............... T.21 Seventh victory loan 1944..P.3 Canada savinge bonds 1951.... .S.6 Loan of 1938 .................... Loan of 1933/34.................. Loan of 1948...............*'* Canada savings bonds 1952.... .8.7 Eighth victory loan 1945 ... P.5 Canada savings bonds 1953.... .S.8 Ninth victory loan 1945...P.7 Canada savings bonds 1954.... S8.9 Canada savings bonds 1955.... .8.10 Loan of 1950..... .......... P.9 Canada savings bonds 1956.... .8.11 Canada savings bonds 1957.... .8.12 Loan of 1949 .................... Loan of 1950 .................... Loan of 1954 ............... T.11 Loan of 1953 ............... T.5 Loan of 1954.......... *..... T.13 Loan of 1956 ............... T.15 Loan of 1936 ............... P.1 Three month treasury billse.... Payable in Canada... Payable in London ..... . Payable in New York .......... (1) Preliminary. (1) Conversion rate 62.80 to the pound sterling. (1) Conversion rate 31.00 Can. to, U.S. dollar. (4) Rate of discount on buis sold March 28, 1958. 3 2 3 21 3 3 3 2î 3 21 3 3 3j 31 3 3j 3 31 31 3-3 31 214 3213 31 314 324 (1)2.27 Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada London London New York Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada New York New York Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada 124,522,000 475,478,000 400,000,000 (1) 14,303,700 947,324,750 300,000,000 250,000, 000 (1) 21,695,100 1,165,300,350 (1) 19,802,250 400,000,000 1,315,639,200 (1) 80,294,200 (2) 1,978,362 (2) 49,833,091 (3) 150, 000,000 (1) 94,655,400 1,295,819,350 (1) 376,298,000 1,691,796,700 ()195,878,300 C)199,591,150 350,000,000 ()367,956,850 <1)1,176,940,400 ()100,000,000 <) 50,000,000 30)0,000,000 100,000,000 400,000,000 250,000,000 55,000,000 1,525,000,000 14,245,107,153 13,893,295,700 51,811,453 300,000,000 14,245,107,153 3,735,660 9,509,560 12,000,000 393,352 28,419,743 9,000,(00 7,500,000 596,615 34,959,011 544,562 12,000,(00 39,469,176 2,810,297 64,297 1,494,993 4,500,000 3,549,578 38,874,581 14,111,175 50,753,901 6,366,045 6,486,712 9,625,000 12,892,427 38,250,563 2,750,000 1,375,000 9,750,000 3,750,000 13,000,000 9,375,000 1,650,000 34,617,500 424,174,748 413,990,458 1,559,290 8, 625,000 424,174,748 HOUSE OF COMMONS Wednesday, June 18, 1958 The bouse met at 2.30 p.m. NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN STATEMENT ON ACQUISITIONS OF LANDS TO ESTABLISH GREEN BELT Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement at this time regarding the establishment of the green belt around the city of Ottawa. The government has now decided to recommend to parliament the necessary measures to make it possible for the crown to acquire ownership of what is known as the green belt around the nation's capital, so as to do what is possible to ensure that the development of the capital area over the long-term future will be in accordance with the national importance and significance of this city. To achieve these ends will require suitable general powers in a bill to establish the national capital commission, as well as to set up the authority over a period of several years for the crown to lend money to the commission to be invested in the purchase of the requisite lands for the pur- pose. This project, as the house knows, was considered by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons two years ago and approved by that committee, with the suggestion that the possibility of achieving this purpose by the use of provincial legis- lation should be further explored. The gov- ernment has reached the conclusion that only the acquisition of the land by the crown under the authority of parliament offers any assured hope of achieving this important long-term objective which we believe the committee had in mind. It has been suggested that the legislature of Ontario might pass legislation to establish this green belt, which would have the effect of taking from private owners of tbe lands, particularly within the confines of the green belt, the values they could get by developing it for purposes inconsistent with the restric- tions necessary to achieve the purposes and aims of setting up the green belt. Such legislation might well give rise to valid arguments that the owners had a legitimate claim for compensation from the province of Ontario because of the effects on them of action taken to accomplish this national purpose. Such problems do not arise under the plan which the government proposes to place before parliament, under which the crown will buy the property and lease it subject to the restrictions necessary tc accomplish the purpose. The details concerning the areas to be in- cluded in the green belt, the limitations of the use to which lands therein may be put, will be worked out for the approval of the gov- ernment by the federal district commission after consultation with the local authorities concerned. Broadly speaking, the area and uses will be those placed before the joint committee in 1956. Some modifications will be desirable which have regard to the de- velopments which have occurred since that time. The government wishes to be sure that local views as to the precise details shall be taken into account. I should like to emphasize that this is a long-term project undertaken in the national interest. It is not a short-term one nor one that has been undertaken at the request of the local municipalities. Experience has shown that unless effectual control is ex- ercised, cities tend to sprawl out into suburbs, resulting in what is called ribbon develop- ment, in a manner that is quite contrary to and inconsistent with the long-term plan- ning that is necessary and essential if the capital of Canada is to be preserved and developed so that it will be a capital city of which this generation and succeeding genera- tions can and will be proud. By investing a reasonable sum now to ac- quire title to the lands on the boundaries of the city the people of Canada, through parlia- ment, can be assured of that control which is necessary before further developments take place which may indeed result in action being taken too late. During the early years after the land is acquired the rents received for it may not be as much as the interest on the funds borrowed to purchase the lands in question, but the government is confident that over the long-term period the invest- ment will be found to be worth while finan- cially, as well as being necessary to achieve the important purpose which we and the people of Canada as a whole, I believe, have in mind and desire. I would suggest that the details concerning this matter can best be discussed when the national capital bill is before the house, which I hope will be at a very early date. 1382 HOUSE OF St. Lawrence Seaway-ToIls Mr. G. J. McIlraith (OIiawa West): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister. I know that those who have taken an im- mediate and direct interest in this problem will be very pleased with the action now being taken. This matter has been receiving attention for some considerable time. To see the realization of the green belt in concrete form is something that will, I am sure, meet with the approval of all who are concerned with the problem. I should like to ask one question by way of clarification. I take it from the statement that it is intended that this matter be dealt with in the new bill replacing the Federal District Commission Act and not as a sepa- rate piece of legislation. Is that right? Mr. Diefenbaker: That is the purpose we have in mind. Mr. McIlraith: Thank you. Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the very im- portant announcement just made by the Prime Minister. As do other Canadians, we look forward to the building of a planned national capital of beauty which all Cana- dians will be proud of in the future. We will wish to look at the bill in detail when it is before the house to see that the legitimate interests of all property holders are main- tained. We also express the hope that in the work as it goes forward attention will be given to the removal of slums within this area, and the development of the whole area not only in the interests of the people of the country generally but the residents of the national capital area. Mr. J. 0. Gour (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for this decision. It was decided in 1956 that this would be the best thing to do. I should merely like to ask whether the owners of land will be reasonably well paid for lands within the green belt that are purchased or expropriated. I also wish the name "green belt" would be changed. ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROPOSED TOLLS Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trans- pori): Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence seaway authority of Canada and the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation of the United States in a simultaneous announcement today are making public the proposed tolls which may form the basis of recommendations to their respective governments to meet the [Mr. Diefenbaker.] COMMONS requirements of the legislation of each coun- try. The recommendations which were sub- mitted by the Canadian tolls committee and by the United States tolls committee are in complete agreement. The main features of the proposed toll structure are as follows: For each passage through the entire seaway, Montreal to or from lake Erie, a vessel will be assessed 6 cents per gross registered ton of vessel and in addition 42 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 95 cents per ton of general cargo carried. For each passage, Montreal to or from lake Ontario only, a vessel will be assessed 4 cents per gross registered ton of vessel and in ad- dition 40 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 90 cents per ton of general cargo carried. For partial transit of the new seaway facilities between Montreal and lake Ontario, where there are seven locks, the user will be charged 15 per cent of the applicable toll for each lock transited. For each passage through the Wellanu canal only a vessel will be assessed 2 cents per gross registered ton of the vessel, and in addition 2 cents per ton of bulk cargo and 5 cents per ton of general cargo carried. In the Welland canal a partial transit will be assessed 50 per cent of the toll irre- spective of the number of locks used. The unit of weight for the collection of tolls on cargo will be a ton of 2,000 pounds. Commercial vessels carrying passengers will be charged 50 cents per passenger for each lock transited between Montreal and lake Erie in addition to the vessel charge. The charging of tolls on the Welland canal as part of the seaway in order to defray the capital cost of deepening as well as operating and maintenance expenses is a requirement of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act passed without dissent by the parliament of Canada in 1951. The act pertains to a deep waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie. The suggested tolls, according to the tolls committees, should be sufficient to meet all financial requirements as the anticipated traffic develops. It is believed by the mem- bers of the tolls committees that the revenue derived will provide for the annual cost of operation and maintenance of the new seaway facilities and of the Welland canal, and meet interest charges and amortize borrowed moneys over a period covering the next 50 years. They have estimated that in the first year of operation the traffic through the new portion of the seaway would approximate 25 million cargo tons but would rise gradually to 50 million tons by 1968. The latter figure has been used for the 40 years after the development period, since this is considered to be the work- able capacity of the facilities presently exist- ing and under construction between Montreal and lake Erie. For the Welland canal the Canadian committee estimates the tonnage of cargo at 40 million tons in 1959 with a gradual increase to 60 million tons in 1968. The traffic estimates of the committees anticipate a developmental period extending to 1968, that is a period of 10 years during which there may not be sufficient revenue to meet all the annual financial requirements. However, with the proposed tolls and the level of traffic which is anticipated begin- ning with the year 1968 they say that the annual revenues will be sufficient to com- pensate for the deficiencies incurred during the development period, and that all other financial requirements will be taken care of within the period of 50 years. A simple method of toll collection is proposed based on the necessity of non-inter- ference with prompt passage by any user. Provision is made for prior registration of any vessel and satisfactory security being given for the payment of charges either with the St. Lawrence seaway authority or with the St. Lawrence seaway develop- ment corporation, subsequent to which passage will be permitted. Toll collection and invoicing of accounts as well as the preparation of statistical data is proposed to be assigned to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The St. Lawrence seaway development corporation has agreed to participate and share in the annual cost of these services. Charges will be billed to the owner or agent promptly and will be payable within seven days after the passage of the ship. For through passage to or from Montreal and lake Ontario, the invoice will show two amounts to be paid: (1) in Canadian funds to cover the proportion applicable to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, which bas been determined at 71 per cent of the total charges; and (2) the balance of the account, or 29 per cent, in United States funds, rep- resenting the proportion applicable to the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, payable at any designated bank in Canada or in the United States. Tolls collected for use of the Welland canal will be for the St. Lawrence seaway authority account and payable in Canadian dollars. The committees stated that the division of tolls indicated above is based upon current figures of es- timated capital and operating costs, and can be subject to variation as actual costs are determined. St. Lawrence Seaway-Tolls The reports stated that the projection of traffic volume and financial requirements bas been made, bearing in mind the legislative requirements on the one hand and on the other the desirability of establishing tolls which in the early years will be conducive to the development of traffic. If future events should indicate that traffic conditions or future financial requirements have been either overestimated or underestimated, the necessary adjustments can be made in the toll structure. Bulk cargo as defined in the proposed tariff will include such commodities as grain and grain products, loose or in sacks, ores and minerals as described, liquids in ships' tanks, pulpwood, poles and logs, woodpulp, waste paper, iron and steel scrap and pig iron. Domestic package freight of each coun- try will also take the bulk cargo rate. All commodities not included in the definition of bulk cargo will be classified as general cargo. The recommendations of the Canadian tolls committee, together with supporting statistical data, are being made public concurrently. In accordance with the requirements of their legislation, the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation will hold public hearings at Washington on August 6, 1958, at which interested parties will have an op- portunity to express their views on the proposed charges. The St. Lawrence seaway authority, as a matter of policy, will hold public hearings at Ottawa commencing the same day. Those intending to appear at Ottawa should advise the acting secretary of the St. Law- rence seaway authority, Ottawa, of their intention to make representations, and should also submit 10 copies of their briefs at least 10 days before the date of the hearing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members will wish to know the total effect of this levy per bushel of grain or per ton of iron ore, etc. On a cargo of wheat moved from Fort William to Montreal we expect that savings of at least 4 cents a bushel will be realized after allowances for the toll charges. For the movement of iron ore, as there are no published freight rates it is impossible to state the exact saving which will be made. However, the evidence is that the savings through the avoidance of transshipment, and use of large ships, will be far in excess of the levy of 46 cents per ton. For all the wide range of other com- modities that will be carried on the seaway similar savings will be realized, varying with the commodity and the particular conditions of its transport. These include bulk com- modities such as coal, pulpwood and petro- leum products, package freight-which as JUNE 18, 1958 1383 1384 HOUSE OF GOMMONS St. Lawrence Seaway-Tolls domestic traffic is to be charged tolls at the approval of the United States government same rate as bulk freight-and direct over- with respect to this tarif of tous; and second, seas traffic in general 7merchandise. Here will the board of transport commissioners again I can only point to the opportunities hear applications-I now refer to complaints for savings which the seaway will provide, made on Monday by the two hon. members which indicate that the amount saved over I mentioned previously-with respect to an and above the toll charges should be industry which is being discriminated against? substantial. In other words, will the board of transport Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): Mr. commissioners have jurisdiction to hear such Speaker, may I congratulate the minister ses, as outlined in section 15 of the St. and more particularly, if he will allow me Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, or will such to do so, the St. Lawrence seaway authority cases faîl under the jurisdiction of the St. for the establishment of a tariff of tolls at Lawrence seaway authority? this time. When the St. Lawrence seaway There is one other point which I would authority was established it had two things to like to raise, and this is by way of complaint. do. The first was to build a 27-foot naviga- I made a complaint on Monday that un- tion canal from Montreal to lake Erie. The fortunately many of the statements which second was to establish a tariff of tolls, the have been emanating from Washington should latter being a matter of great importance and have emanated frorn this House of Commons. one which was extremely complicated. On at least three different occasions there That is why I would now like to say that have been complaints in this house on the I believe the St. Lawrence seaway authority part of bath the hon. member for Welland as well as the St. Lawrence seaway develop- and myseif that the minister and the govern- ment corporation should be commenced for ment should have given the information to the establishment of that toll in co-operation the house and, instead of giving it to the with each other. I am not in a position, of bouse at the appropriate time, it came from course, to pass judgment on the matter of Washington. I am informed on reliable tolls; that will require some study, but I authority that the statement which the hon. would point out to the minister that I am minister has just made was given to the glad he has made this statement because press in Washington last night, and tbat news- just on Monday of this week my colleagues papermen in the United States telephoned the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Mc- newspapermen in Canada asking them for Millan) and the hon. member for Niagara their views on the tarif of tolîs. The news- Falls (Mr. Houck) complained about the fact papermen in ibis country had not seen ibis that we were being given little or no infor- tarif and were therefore not given an op- mation concerning the seaway, concerning the portunty to consider the tolîs. I know this imposition of tolls and concerning the manner is nat the fault of the government but it is in which those tolls would be imposed. Now, certainly the fauli of someone, and it is a while we have not been given all the in- pretty serious fauli because, since the talîs formation for which we have asked, we have are sa complicated, it barely gives our news- been given some information and for that papermen a chance ta report authoritatively I am grateful to the minister. on them. I would also like to say that as I listened I would therefore ask the minister why to the information on the various tolls men- Canadian newsmen did not have the same tioned by the minister, while I am not in a opportunity as their colleagues in the United position to comment upon them they did States to obtain information on these tous appear to me to be attractive. However, at least 12 hours before the announcement whether they are low enough to be non- was made, in order that they might have bad discriminatory to the industries which will an opportunity to prepare their reports. be established along the seaway is a matter Mr. Hees: I would like to answer the hon. which will have to be studied by the bodies member on that point. h was arranged be- to which the minister has referred. tween the Canadian and United States As the minister has said, the toll must be authorities that this release would be made high enough to amortize the capital expen- simultaneously at 2.30 this afiernoon. It was ditures in connection with the seaway and my understanding that this release was not must be low enough to encourage traffic. to be banded to the press of either country Are these tolls low enough to encourage until that time. It was our intention to give traffic to move freely? I hope they are. ibis release to the press in Canada simul- The questions which now come to my taneously with my announcement in the mind are, first, will the government seek the bouse. However, the authorities in the United [Mr. Hees.] JUNE 19, 1958 States released copies last night, .I under- stand. I was told of that this morning, and was advised that the release bore a release time of 2.30 p.m. today. As soon as I learned that this had been done, which was at about a quarter to twelve this morning, I im- mediately made arrangements that the state- ment should be released to the press of Canada at that time for their information with a release time firmly stated upon it of 2.30 this afternoon. Mr. Chevrier: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend realizes that this is about the third time within the last two or three months that this has happened. Mr. Hees: I might answer the bon. mem- ber in this way. Any time that reports have come from Washington I have been as surprised and disturbed as he and other hon. members have been. I have made inquiries upon each occasion, and have been told that the statements have not been official state- ments and have not been connected with the members of the tolls committee or the American seaway development corporation, and I have accepted the explanation of the United States authorities in good faith. Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement by the minister. A reading of the Congressional Record in the last several months, especially the portions emanating from the House of Representatives, indicates there has been a great deal of misinformation in the United States bouse as to the part that Canada bas played in the seaway and the respective weight of the burdens borne by the two countries, and concerning the whole defini- tion of toll charges. I hope the government will take the action which seemed to be called for in the remarks of the bon. member for Laurier, and that is to issue an aggressive statement on Canada's position in this whole question of tolls and the role we have played. In other words, the government should do something in the way of a public relations job in the United States and especially in Washington, to let them know the part Canada has played. I take it from the minister's statement that any possibility of discriminatory clauses against foreign shipping bas been completely ruled out. Of course I do not think this is a dead issue, and I hope some of the groups who present briefs to the meeting on August 6 will bring up that matter again, because it is a question that is not completely settled to the satisfaction of many people, especially those along the lake, despite the report of the royal commission on coastal shipping. 57071-3-88 Estimates of Department of Transport TRANSPORT REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, after the house had gone into supply, the estimates of three departments were called including those of the Department of Transport. At that time I asked leave to move that the estimates of that particular department be referred to the standing committee on rail- ways, canals and telegraph lines. My friend the bon. member for Laurier suggested that this motion be allowed to stand until yester- day in order that he might discuss this proposal with the Leader of the Opposition. Today, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks): That items numbered 414 to 430, inclusive, items numbered 433 to 441, inclusive, items numbered 444 to 472, inclusive, and items numbered 512 to 516, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and items numbered 628 to 634, inclusive, items numbered 636 to 651, inclusive, and items numbered 661 and 662, as listed in the supplementary esti- mates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Transport be with- drawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation ta the voting of public moneys. That list excludes the five items which in the ordinary course are 'sent to a special sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping. All items with the exception of those five are covered by the motion. I merely point out again that this plan is being followed in the belief that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will be able to thoroughly examine the estimates of the Department of Transport. There it will be possible to have officials of the department interrogated and a much more careful study made than is the case in the committee of the whole house. Of course, once the estimates have been con- sidered by this standing committee they would then be referred back to the com- mittee of supply, when they will all have to be passed by hon. members of the house sitting in committee. This is in line with the action we have taken- Mr. Speaker: Order. As I understand the motion which the minister is making it is under standing order 57 and is not debatable. If the minister feels it necessary to make an extended explanation I would feel obliged to permit at least equivalent debate from hon. members on the other side of the bouse, so I warn the minister that the motion is not debatable. HOUSE OF COMMONS Estimates of Department of Transport Mr. Green: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will say no more. Mr. Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly under the impression that the motion could be debated, and I would like to say some- thing at this time. Mr. Speaker: That is not my understand- ing of the standing order under which the motion is made. Perhaps I should read the motion, which is as follows: That items numbered 414 to 430, inclusive, items numbered 433 ta 441, inclusive, items numbered 444 to 472, inclusive, and items numbered 512 to 516, inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1958-59; and items numbered 628 to 634, inclusive, items numbered 636 ta 651, inclusive, and items numbered 661 and 662, as listed in the supple- mentary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, relating to the Department of Transport be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the vot- ing of public moneys. Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): Before Your Honour proceeds with the matter may I say that I am under the impression that this is a motion which requires notice, and I was rising not to protest against notice not being given, but to take advantage of the fact that notice was not given and to ask for permission to make a statement. The leader of the bouse has already made a rather lengthy 'statement, and I should like to be allowed to say something in reply, with the permission of the house. Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the bouse it would be possible. As I understand it the motion comes under standing order 57, which reads: A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be made without notice during routine proceedings by a minister of the crown with- drawing any item or items in the estimates from the committee of supply and referring the same to any standing or special committee and, upon report from any such committee, the said item or items shall stand referred to the committee of supply. This is a new rule in the last amendment and presumably it was designed specifically for the present purpose. Perhaps the minister did not understand when he made his state- ment. I daresay in the circumstances he and the house will agree to hear a brief state- ment from the hon. member for Laurier. Is that agreed? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Chevrier: I thank Mr. Speaker and the bouse. My purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to object to the estimates of the Depart- ment of Transport being referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. It seems to me that is a standing com- mittee of the house established under one [Mr. Speaker.] of the rules for an explicit purpose, namely to deal with matters concerning railways, canals, waterways, civil aviation and the like, which are referred to it from time to time by this house. It would seem to me that we should deal in the House of Com- mons in the committee of the whole with the estimates of the Department of Trans- port, which is a large spending department, as is the Department of Public Works. That is one of the reasons why I think the estimates should remain here. Another reason is that I am afraid this committee is to be used for purposes other than those for which it was established. The suggestion was made very innocently the other day at the com- mittee meeting that perhaps there could be called before that committee such witnesses as Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, and Mr. Gordon McGregor, president of T.C.A., to discuss matters con- cerning the affairs of the Canadian National Railways and T.C.A., when for years it has been the practice to deal with these matters in another committee. Mr. Green: May I point out it is the in- tention this year to have the Canadian National Railways and the T.C.A. dealt with by another committee. Mr. Chevrier: I am glad to hear that is the intention. It will give the bouse its usual opportunity of discussing these matters when the committee is established. But then there is another thing to which I feel I must strongly object, namely the intention of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to establish itself as a study group and call officers and officials of the Department of Transport. I think that is getting away from the purpose of standing committees of this house. They are not established for the purpose of being used as study groups. If there are members in this house who feel that they want information there are several ways in which they can get that information other than by turning the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines into a study group. In conclusion, because I realize I am trespassing on the time of the house, I should like to quote just one short statement which may be found in Hansard of 1955, volume I, at page 968, when the house was dealing with the motion to refer estimates to the special committee on estimates: I shall conclude with this observation. I believe it would be a mistake-and again the minister may correct me if I misunderstood him-to have a com- mittee of supply examining departmental estimates in this chamber and at the same time a committee on estimates examining some other department in some other part of this building. We would have the main House of Commons and a minor bouse of commons operating at one and the same time. JUNE 18, 1958 It seems to me that would detract from one or the other, and my preference is to retain the dis- cussion here in the House of Commons. These were the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). I could read the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) but I will not trespass on the time of the house. All I need say is that at that time strong ob- jection was taken to a motion of this kind. I do not believe it is possible to deal with these estimates properly in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which is set up for one purpose, rather than deal with them in the House of Commons which is the proper place for them. I ask the minister and the Prime Minister to recall what, if not he, at least the present leader of the house said on one occasion, namely that it was the responsibility of the committee established at the time to decide whether or not estimates would be considered by it. Now it is the house that is deciding without the consent of the committee. Apparently the purpose- Mr. Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he not admit that this referred to the committee on estimates? Mr. Chevrier: Yes, but the principle- Mr. Green: It is an entirely different thing. Mr. Chevrier: Oh, no; the principle is ex- actly the same. What was being done 'at the time was to refer certain estimates to the committee on estimates. What is being done now is to take various departments and send their estimates to other committees estab- lished and not functioning. In other words, eight or ten departments will go to eight or ten different committees; whereas I respect- fully submit that the egtimates, particularly of the larger departments, should remain in the House of Commons where they can get better consideration and better study can be given them. That is the point I am trying to make. I ask the minister as well as the Prime Minister to reconsider this motion. Mr. Green: How does the hon. member differentiate between the course we are now advocating and the course followed in con- nection with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs? Mr. Chevrier: It was the only department. Mr. Speaker: The matter is before the house, and I cannot even ask if the house is ready for the question. It is not debatable. It is my duty to put the question unless the mover and seconder request otherwise. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion? Some hon. Members: Dispense. 57071-3-88J Questions Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of the mo- tion will please say yea. Some hon. Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: Those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to, on division. STARRED QUESTIONS RESEARCH INTO NATURAL HEALTH RESOURCES Question No. 12-Mr. Winch: 1. Since July 16, 1955, has any research been undertaken under instructions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Charles Best Institute in Toronto, or the research committee of the department into any aspects relating to natural health resources in Canada? 2. If so, will the reports be made available to the house? 3. If no research has been instituted, Is same being considered? Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare): The answer to the first part of the question is no; but it must be understood that a former minister of the department may have invited outstanding re- search centres and the provinces to submit suitable projects for federal assistance on behalf of such research- Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is right. Mr. Monteith (Perth): -under the terms of the national health grants, but there is no record that the research centres or their sponsoring provinces have done so to date. Question No. 2 is answered by my answer to question No. 1. In answer to question No. 3, I would say that it is not proposed at this time to undertake such research within the department, but the provinces will continue to be encouraged to submit projects under the national health grants for federal assistance for research dealing with all aspects of the health of the people of Canada. FAUTEUX REPORT-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Question No. 13-Mr. Winch: 1. Have any of the 44 recommendations con- tained in the Fauteux report been Implemented? 2. If so, which ones, and was such implementation made by federal or provincial authority? 3. Has the Department of Justice entered inte negotiations with the various provincial govern- ments relative to joint action? 4. Have steps been taken to call a dominion- provincial conference of attorneys general in con- nection with such recommendations? Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is yes. In reply to part 2 I would say that HOUSE OF COMMONS Questions the following recommendations have been implemented, in whole or in part, by the federal government: 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43. I made a sincere attempt, Mr. Speaker, to prepare, for the information of the hon. gentleman who asked the question and of the bouse, a short summary of the actual content of those recommendations to which I have referred by number, but I found it was not possible to condense it into a short space. However, if the house would consent I would be prepared to table at this point, so that it may form part of the answer, a written statement showing in detail just what the recommendations were and what has been done in connection with them. Mr. Speaker: Is the house agreeable that the statement to which the minister has just referred be tabled and made a part of Hansard at this point? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Fulton: The recommendations that have been implemented, in whole or in part, by the federal government are as follows: 20. The federal and the provincial governments should give serious consideration, in expanding their systems of penal institutions, to the establish- ment, on a medium security basis, of such addi- tional institutions as may be required. Joyceville is being built as a medium security institution and the new Quebec insti- tution will also be of that type. 21. In the women's prison at Kingston, Ontario, a more intensified system of varied forms of treat- ment should be instituted. The commissioner of penitentiaries informs me that additional professional staff has been added. 23. In relation to the operation of all penal institutions in Canada, more reception centres should be established to which inmates may be initially committed for classification and ultimate committal to the particular institution that provides the most useful form of treatment in their par- ticular cases. Reception wings have been put in operation in the penitentiaries at Montreal and Prince Albert. 24. Classification staffs should be provided for all penal institutions in Canada and, where they already exist, they should be increased to an appropriate size. Classification staffs in the penitentiaries are being increased regularly in size. 28. Every penal institution in Canada should in- stitute an appropriate pre-release program for the benefit of inmates. Each of the penitentiaries has instituted, by way of experiment, pre-release programs for inmates serving long sentences. 35. As soon as possible, a system of automatic parole review should be instituted for Canada, [Mr. Fulton.] thereby dispensing with the present system which requires an application for parole. The remission service has instituted a sys- tem of automatic parole review which is 40 per cent completed. 38. Some means should be found to provide specialized after-care for particular types of parolees, such as sex offenders, drug addicts, alco- holics and psychopaths. The remission service, in conjunction with the after-care agencies and with the co-opera- tion of certain clinics, is increasing the amount of specialized after-care that is avail- able for persons of these types. 39. The federal and provincial governments should increase their financial grants to voluntary after- care agencies in order to enable them to work more effectively in the correctional field. There have been annual increases in the amounts that parliament has been asked to appropriate by way of grants to voluntary after-care agencies. The amount for the cur- rent fiscal year that is asked is $120,000, divided between the penitentiary service and the remission service. 41. The annual conference of after-care agencies and government services should be continued in the future. The conference of after-care agencies has been held annually since the Fauteux report was presented to the government. 42. A national parole board should be established as recommended in chapter XI of the report. The speech from the throne forecast a bill to establish a national parole board at the present session of parliament. 43. The administration of federal correctional services should be organized as suggested in chapter XII of the report. In partial implementation of this recom- mendation we have established a committee consisting of the deputy minister of justice, the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police, the commissioner of penitentiaries and the direct- or of the criminal law section of the Depart- ment of Justice for the purpose of consider- ing and advising on questions of policy or general concern in connection with matters under our jurisdiction in the correctional field. The answer to part 3 is no and the answer to part 4 is yes. I should like to state by way of amplification that I answered 3 in the negative because we have not actually commenced the conference, and part 4 in the affirmative because we are taking steps to call that conference this year. HEALTH INSURANCE-HOSPITAL SERVICE COSTs Question No. 14-Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1. Have representations been received from the Canadian Hospital Association by the Prime Min- ister or the Minister of National Health and Wel- fare, urging the administration to allow deprecia- tion and interest on debt, and to be included as hospital service costs under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act? 2. If so, what reply, if any, has been made to these representations by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the answer to num- ber 1 is yes and the answer to number 2 is that the representations made are about to be considered on the expert level to ascertain the implications inherent in them. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): May I ask the Prime Minister if he bas considered the reply made the other day by the Minister of National Health and Welfare? I do not think it can possibly be regarded as consistent- Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Essex East to defer his question until the orders of the day. RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ROADS Question No. 16-Mr. Benidickson: What offers, if any, for sharing costs of roads for resources development has the government made to the provinces since July 1, 1957, beyond the offer set out in appendix "C" to Hansard of January 3, 1958 (forest access roads)? Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the offer made to the provinces, as set out in appendix "C" of Han- sard of January 3, 1958, letters were sent to the premier of each province on February 12, 1958, offering them the opportunity of partic- ipating in the roads to resources program. The program in each province would be on .a five year basis, and the federal government would be prepared to provide up to 50 per cent of the cost of constructing resource roads falling within an agreed program up to a maximum contribution by the federal government in any one year of $1,500,000 in each province or a total of $7,500,000 for the five year period. The provincial government would be responsible for the maintenance of any roads constructed under the program. With the permission of the house I shall now table copies of the letters sent to the premiers of the provinces outlining the proposals of the federal government. The premiers of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick received identical letters to that sent to Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island. I am also tabling a copy of the letter dated February 14 sent by the deputy minister of my department to the premier of the province of Alberta advising that the proposal need no longer be treated as confidential. Identical letters were sent to the premiers of the other provinces on the same date. Questions CANADA COUNCIL-CAPITAL EXPENDITURE GRANTS Question No. 17-Mr. Fisher: 1. What value and percentage of the grants of Canada Council awarded to universities in the last operational year went for residences or dormitories? 2. Is it a requirement set by Canada Couneil that such residences contain a library? 3. If so, what requirements are there as to size, type of bookstock and catalogue facilities? 4. Has Canada Council a classification of the kind of university capital expenditures to which it will consider awarding grants? 5. If so, what is the classification? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, these questions have to do with the Canada Council. Last autumn, on November 27, a question was asked by the bon. gentleman respecting the Canada Council and I refer to the answer appearing in Hansard at page 1558, where these words in particular are found: Paragraph 23 of the act clearly specifles the man- ner in which the council is to report to parliament annually. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that when he asked that question last fall concerning the Canada Council it was pointed out that the council is not an agent of Her Majesty and that the Canada Council Act clearly specifles the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually. The hon. member communicated with my office in order to ascertain how the informa- tion that he desires to secure might be procurable. I felt that it would be possible to make the request for the information to the council and for the council to be able to fur- nish it. However, the government does not have in its records the information requested, nor does it consider that if bas the power to request information from the council other than that which will appear in the annual report. It is impossible to give any answer to the several questions asked. Under the circum- stances I trust that the bon. member will not press the government further for information of this nature. The annual report of the council will probably be tabled later this month, at which time hon. members will obtain detailed information as to the opera- tions and policies of the council. I again say that I hoped we would have been able to secure this information but that has proven impossible, having regard to the legislation in effect. CARSON STROUD Question No. 18-Mr. Pickersgill: 1. la Carson Stroud of Glovertown, Newfoundland, employed in any capacity by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources? 2. If so, what are his duties and what is his remuneration? 1389JUNE 18, 1958 HOUSE OF COMMONS Orders for Returns 3. If not, does he select persons to be employed in the Terra Nova national park? Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, the answers to these three questions are as follows: 1, no; 2, answered by No. 1; 3, no. FISHERY GUARDIANS, NEWFOUNDLAND Question No. 19-Mr. Batten: 1. What were the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1957? 2. For how many seasons had they been employed in each case? 3. To what rivers were they assigned in each case? 4. What are the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1958? 5. To what rivers have they been assigned in each case? Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, to answer all parts of this ques- tion requires long lists of names, addresses and locations, 122 of them in one case. I think I should not take up the time of the house reading these lists. Perhaps it would meet the hon. member's purpose if I were to ask that the question be made an order for return. Mr. Speaker: Question No. 19 is made an order for return. QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS FISHERY GUARDIANS, NEWFOUNDLAND Question No. 19-Mr. Batten: 1. What were the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1957? 2. For how many seasons had they been employed in each case? 3. To what rivers were they assigned in each case? 4. What are the names and addresses of all fishery guardians employed on salmon rivers by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Newfoundland in 1958? 5. To what rivers have they been assigned in each case? HIGHWAY BRIDGES, ONTARIO-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Question No. 72-Mr. Houck: 1. What are the names and locations of highway bridges in the province of Ontario to which the federal government has contributed financiai assist- ance in building or repairs from July 1, 1957 until May 1, 1958? 2. Which of these bridges carry both highway and railway traffic, indicating railway in each instance? 3. What was the total expenditure on each bridge for the above-mentioned period? 4. How was the cost shared? [Mr. Pickersgill.] PROHIBITED BOOKS Question No. 73-Mr. Fisher: 1. How many books were prohibited entry into Canada in the year ending June 1, 1958? 2. What were the respective countries of origin, the authors and titles? HEART DISEASE AND CANCER-MORTALITY AND RESEARCH STATISTICS Question No. 89-Mr. McMillan: 1. During the last five years how many persons in Canada, by provinces, have died each year (a) from heart disease; (b) from cancer? 2. Are grants provided annually for research into the causes of cancer and heart disease? 3. If so, (a) what amounts are appropriated for such purposes and in what manner have such amounts been distributed; (b) which institutions are entitled thereto? MOTIONS FOR PAPERS PREMIUM IRON ORE COMPANY Motion No. 3-Mr. Fisher: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Minister of National Revenue or any officials of the department, and officials of the United States, concerning the Consolidated Premium Iron Ore Company, the Premium Iron Ore Company, Cyrus Eaton, and F. Daley, from January 1, 1948 to May 12, 1958. Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio): In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue may I make the following statement. The Minister of National Revenue has had several conversations with the hon. member who has asked for these papers, and as a result they have agreed as to what documents should be produced under the terms of the order, certain restrictions being necessary because of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act. I want to emphasize, however, the min- ister says, that all of the correspondence exchanged between the deputy ministers of the Department of National Revenue (taxa- tion) and the United States officials has been produced. Subject to that qualification, and also to the usual one respecting the obtain- ing of the consent of the United States government to such production, the order may be allowed to pass. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the explana- tion and limitations set out in the communica- tion from the minister? Motion agreed to. "CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1958" Motion No. 6-Mr. Pickersgill: For a copy of "The Canadian Economie Outlook for 1958" as prepared by the Department of Trade and Ccmmerce. 1390 Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the government finds it necessary to oppose this motion, on the ground that "The Canadian Economic Out- look for 1958", is a confidential document. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. McIlraith: Take the cover off it. Mr. Diefenbaker: If my hon. friends will wait a moment they will hear the rest of the answer. It is believed that the publication of the report- Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. May I draw Your Honour's attention to standing order No. 47, which reads: Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shal be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". Al such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions". Now, sir, if the Prime Minister would undertake to give us an opportunity for a debate on this motion, I would ask the Clerk under that rule to have this motion trans- ferred to notices of motions. If the Prime Minister is not willing to do that, I do not think he should have privileges that are not accorded to other members of the house. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker- Mr. Speaker: On the point of order? Mr. Diefenbaker: Yes. I was just following the course that the hon. gentleman himself followed on January 20, 1954, when he set forth the reasons for his objection to certain productions. I was going to say we will pro- duce it immediately after this year ends. It is a current report, publication of which would be detrimental until January, 1959. Mr. Speaker: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is, of course, in accordance with the rules, a point of order. It is not a debatable motion. It can be transferred for the purpose of debate. Is that at the request of the house or the government? It is not a debatable motion. The only thing that remains is to dispose of the motion, and I shall now put it. All those in favour of the motion will say yea. Mr. Pickersgill: On the point of order, if I might crave your indulgence, it does not appear that it requires the consent of the house. The rule says: -if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions". Motions for Papers I request Your Honour to ask the Clerk to transfer this to notices of motions, on the understanding that the government will pro- vide an opportunity for debate, an under- taking which I might point out was given by the preceding government in exactly similar circumstances. Mr. Speaker: I ask the Prime Minister if he wishes to address himself to this provision of the rule: Al such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions". Now I raise the question, at whose request will the motion be transferred for debate? If anyone can give me any assistance on the subject I shall be glad to have it. If the Prime Minister or any member has anything to say on that point I would be glad to hear him. Mr. Green: I might point out that reading the first part of rule 47, we find this: Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". The hon. member has put this question on the order paper marked with an asterisk, yet now he thinks he will get some advantage by changing his mind and having a debate on the subject. I suggest the rule was never intended to enable a member to make such a request. Mr. Pickersgill: I should like to submit to Your Honour that on one occasion about two years ago a motion was made by a member of the C.C.F. party for certain documents relating to the Caughnawaga Indian reserve at the time I was minister. I invoked this rule, the motion was transferred, and the government of the day gave an undertaking that there would be an opportunity for debate, which opportunity was provided. Mr. Speaker: What does the hon. member say to the point made by the Minister of Public Works, that by placing the notice of motion on the order paper with a star he has elected not to have a debate? Mr. Pickersgill: I submit that it is provided in the rules that this transfer can be made. The important word is "transfer". It would have been quite acceptable to me to have no debate if the government had been willing to comply with the motion. Since the Prime Minister has refused the information to the house it does seem to me, sir, that then I can invoke the second part of the standing JUNE 18, 1958 1391 HOUSE OF COMMONS Motions for Papers order and ask to have it transferred for the purpose of having a debate on a matter which, as Your Honour will recall, relates to a document which the Prime Minister gratuitously brought before the house in a previous parliament. Mr. McIlraith: I wonder if I might be heard on the point of order. I want to draw Your Honour's attention to the different language used in the two parts of standing order No. 47. The first part deals with the marking of the question when it is put on the order paper. The second part deals with the transfer when it is called. In other words there are two different points of time, and I think that completely answers the argument made by the Minister of Public Works. I should like if I may, then, to read the standing order in the light of these remarks. The first part reads: Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". Then there is a period in the standing order. Then this part comes: All such notices when called- And I want to emphasize the words "when called". -shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be trans- ferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions". In other words, the point I want to make is that two different points of time are envisaged. There is nothing inconsistent in a member placing the motion on the order paper with an asterisk and, when the motion is called, asking for a debate. Mr. Harkness: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it seems to me that this rule is quite clear. It states: All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired- It seems to me it is quite clear that it is not the desire of the individual or the member who places the motion on the order paper which is meant, but rather the desire of the house. If the house desires a debate on it, well and good; it will be proceeded with. Sone hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Harkness: I do not think you can read anything else into this clause except that what is meant is that it is the desire of the house that debate be held. [Mr. Pickersgill.] Mr. Green: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. If the contention made by the hon. member for Ottawa West is correct, then on every single one of these notices of motions for the production of papers the member who puts that notice on the order paper can force a debate on it. Mr. McIlraith: That is right. Mr. Green: That would be a ridiculous situation if the house should have to debate every one of these notices of motions simply at the whim of the hon. member who hap- pened to put it on the order paper. Mr. Argue: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out what I feel would be the practical result of the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Mr. Speaker: With all due respect to the hon. member may I say that I am not inter- ested in the practical result. I am interested in what this rule means as it reads. If he will address himself to that point of order we shall dispose of it. We all know what the practical result will be. Mr. Argue: As to what the rule means, may J say this. The standing order reads in part: Al such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of motions". I suggest that the hon. member who has made the request, because of the fact that the motion is in his name, is not in order in that request. I suggest further that this rule cannot be applied in order to bring on a debate merely by adopting it because, if we pass it, the motion will go to the bottom of notices of motions and would be No. 46. Those are private members' motions, and it would not come up for debate. Therefore the desired debate would not be achieved. I do not think either, with great respect, that the Prime Minister as such can himself say whether or not a debate may be held. It is up to the house at some future date to decide. Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the assistance he has given me. However, I am still finding some difficulty with this rule. I think it is open to any member to put a notice of motion of this kind on the order paper, under notices of motions, to which heading it will go if it is transferred at this time. As I understand the rule, the marking of the notice with an asterisk simply means that it is dealt with on routine proceedings with other matters that do not require an extensive expenditure of time, and where there is no debate. That is where we find it. If there is a change of mind and a debate is 1392 required on the motion, this rule apparently permits the notice to be transferred to the general heading "Notices of Motions" and, as the hon. member for Assiniboia points out, there it will go to the bottom of the list where it will likely be buried for the rest of the session. However, I think that was the intention of the rule. The only thing that puzzled me was whether the mover of the motion could in effect change his mind. The question really is whose request or whose desire is to be given effect to. As there has been a request for a debate on this motion, I think effect should be given to that request and that it should be transferred to the order paper under notices of motions. UNDERPASS CONSTRUCTION, MILE 41.05, MONTREAL Motion No. 9-Mr. Rouleau: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspon- dence and other documents exchanged since August 10, 1953, between the Canadian National Railways, the city of St. Laurent and its solicitors, the transport commission of Montreal, the member of parliament for Dollard and the Board of Trans- port Commissioners for Canada, concerning the application of the city of St. Laurent for the build- ing of an underpass at the intersection of Decarie boulevard and the Canadian National Railways line at mile 41.05, L'Assomption subdivision, bearing file No. 26782.193 of the commission. He said: Mr. Speaker, as I have obtained the information from the department, I wish to withdraw my motion with the consent of the house. Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion, which is No. 9? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Order discharged and motion withdrawn. RESOURCE ROADS PROGRAM, ONT. Motion No. 15-Mr. Benidickson: For a copy of all correspondence since Septem- ber 1, 1957, between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting cost sharing of a roads to resources program. Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to table copies of such correspondence, subject, of course, to pro- vincial concurrence, once agreements with the provinces have been signed. I do not consider, however, that it would be in the public interest to table copies of such cor- respondence while negotiations are still being carried on. Mr. Speaker: Does the house consent that this item stand? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Motion stands. 57071-3-89 Inquiries of the Ministry CARSON STROUD Motion No. 16-Mr. Pickersgill: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since January 1, 1958, between the minister of northern affairs or any member of his staff and any person or organization in Newfoundland regarding Mr. Carson Stroud of Glovertown, Newfoundland. Motion agreed to. ELECTRIC POWER, NEWFOUNDLAND-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Motion No. 17-Mr. Pickersgill: For a copy of any communications addressed to the Prime Minister by the premier of Newfound- land since February 1, 1958, regarding federal assist- ance in the provision of electric power and any replies thereto. Mr. Diefenbaker: Subject to the usual reservations. Mr. Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister what reservations he refers to. Mr. Diefenbaker: I am just quoting my hon. friend once more. Mr. Speaker: I take it that the reservation referred to is the one which bas been ex- pressed as to correspondence. Subject to this reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Motion agreed to. BRIDGES SECOND NARROWS, VANCOUVER-COLLAPSE OF TWO SECTIONS On the orders of the day: Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Was the federal government a financial partner in the con- struction of the second narrows bridge in Vancouver? If so, can he inform the house whether there will be a federal inquiry into the reasons for the collapse of two sections of the bridge, with the resulting heavy toll in dead and injured? Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works): No, Mr. Speaker. The agreement under the Trans-Canada Highway Act does not cover this particular bridge. Much as we regret this unfortunate accident, the domin- ion government has no jurisdiction. FINANCE RELEASE POLICY RESPECTING HUNGARIAN- PoLISH-ROUMANIAN ASSETS On the orders of the day: Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier): I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister JUNE 18, 1958 1393 Inquiries of the Ministry of which I gave him notice. Has any further consideration been given to establishing a release policy with regard to Hungarian, Polish and Roumanian assets vested in the custodian similar to the so-called victims' policy applicable to German assets, whereby individuals who prove that they themselves were subject to nazi persecution can have their property rights restored? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): This matter is receiving extended consideration by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche), and when a decision is arrived at it will be communicated to the house. INDUSTRY STEEL-INQUIRY AS TO TRADING IN PAGE- HERSEY COMPANY STOCK On the orders of the day: Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River): I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that yesterday, shortly before the announce- ment of increased tarif' protection on certain steel products, trading on the Toronto stock exchange in the stock of Page-T-Iersey Company, Canada's largest manufacturer of steel pipes and tubes, was according to press reports unusually heavy and was accompanied by a marked advance in price, does the min- ister feel that an investigation of the circum- stances would be desirable? Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of this alleged activity on the stock market and I do not know whether the tariff action proposed last night, had it been known in advance, would have had any bearing on any activity in the stock market. The fact is, as every- body knows, that there has been newspaper speculation for days as to what action the government might propose in the light of recommendations made by the tariff hoard with regard to tariffs on pipes and tubes, which recommendations were made months ago on a reference directed to the board by the former Liberal government. CRIMINAL CODE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-REPORTED PROGRAM OF BULLFIGHTS On the orders of the day: Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooenay Wesi): Having in mind his interest in the humane treatment of animals, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of newspaper reports to the effect that a certain Ontario chamber of commerce [Mr. Crestohl.] intends to stage a program of bloodless bull- fights for the August 2-4 holiday week end, would the minister inform the house if he considers the present provisions of the Crimi- nal Code stringent enough to prevent any cruelty which might occur as the result of the introduction into Canada of this undesir- able and exotic form of entertainment? Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the hon. member to consider that he is really asking for a legal opinion, but I do not wish to prevent him from getting such a legal opinion if the minister is prepared to answer his question. Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I have an answer ready to this question because I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in having given me notice. I would, however, point out that I can neither give a firm legal opinion nor do I know what a bloodless bullfight is or might be. My answer is therefore even more hypothet- ical in this case than is the hon. member's question. The Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to wilfully wound or injure cattle, including bulls, and also makes it an offence for a person to wilfully cause or, being the owner, wilfully permit to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. It is also an offence for a person in any manner to encourage, aid or assist at the fighting or baiting of animals. I have seen some of the newspaper reports to which the hon. member has referred, but I do not think it would be proper for me as Minister of Justice to attempt to express in advance any opinion on the question of whether a proposed performance of this kind would or would not contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code to which I have referred. I have no doubt that the local law enforce- ment authorities will, in accordance with the Canadian tradition in such matters, keep close watch on the situation and will be ready to take appropriate steps at once if, in the course of such a performance, it appears that any violation of the criminal law is involved. FISHERIES SALT CODFISH-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR PRICE On the orders of the day: Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Concepion): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries when the government intends to establish a floor price for Newfoundland salt codfish, as pronised by the Prime Minister prior to March 31. HOUSE OF COMMONS1394 Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries): A similar question was asked on May 29 last by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger). The question and answer are to be found at pages 610 and 611 of Hansard, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave at that time. TELEVISION MOOSE JAW-GRANTING OF LICENCE TO STATION CHAB On the orders of the day: Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a successful appli- cation made by radio station CHAB at Moose Jaw to the C.B.C. board of governors for permission to operate a television station. Could the minister say whether his depart- ment is likely to grant such a licence expe- ditiously, as the people in that area are anxiously awaiting the establishment of this station? Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport): I am not aware of the particular instance to which reference is made, but I will look into the matter and advise the bon. member. NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN INQUIRY AS TO REMOvAL OF SLUM AREAS On the orders of the day: Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam): I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Does the announcement of the Prime Miister in regard to the supplying of money for the purchase of land outside the city of Ottawa to enhance the prestige of our na- tional capital also include provision for re- moving out of the city of Ottawa many of the slum areas and fire-trap houses which now exist in the heart of the city? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think I made it perfectly clear as to what was the purpose of the legislation to be brought before par- liament, and I see no reason why there should be any agreement whatsoever with the sug- gestion that Ottawa is in the condition de- scribed by the hon. member. TRADE FISH-INQUIRY AS TO EFFORTS TO FIND NEW MARKETS On the orders of the day: Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception): I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would advise this house whether any steps have been taken to explore 57072-1-891 Hospital Insurance Act new markets for Newfoundland fish, in view of the fact that there is likely to be increased production resulting from the large number of unemployed persons returning to the fish- ing industry? Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was attempt- ing to find an earlier question similar to this but I cannot locate it, though I feel sure it has been asked before. Every effort is being made to extend the markets for Newfoundland fish. We are fully aware of the problems facing the fishing in- dustry. A first class presentation of the facts has been made to us by a representative of the provincial government, and we have also heard from people in the fishing industry. We will be hearing from other groups, I think, this week or next, and we are getting all available information respecting the in- dustry generally. We are aware of the fact that a number of people have returned and are now actively engaged in fisheries, and also that there is a surplus stock of fish on hand from last year's catch. With these facts in mind every effort is being made to discover new outlets for New- foundland fishery products, and these efforts will continue to be made as vigorously as is possible. HOUSE OF COMMONS "HANSARD"-SUGGESTION AS TO PRINTING On the orders of the day: Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West): I would like to draw the attention of the house to a matter which might concern many hon. members. It is with respect to the printing of Hansard. If a member rises on a question of privilege during orders of the day, it occa- sionally happens that his remarks are printed on pages 1 and 2 under the classification "Contents". In that case they are not included in the bound edition of Hansard. I would therefore suggest that this matter be given consideration. HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORIZE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTICIPATING PROvINCES, ETC. Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, section 1 (1) of this bill merely clarifies the view which has been generally accepted by both the provinces and the federal government JUNE 18, 1958 1395 Hospital Insurance Act to the effect that drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in the agree- ment may only be considered as insured services when these items are actually ad- ministered in the hospital. It is obvious that if drugs were made available on a take-home basis the control of expenditures would be- come very difficult. The matter of control is as important to the provinces as it is to the federal government. The suggested amendment will not, there- fore, alter the present arrangements with the provinces in any way. It will merely clarify the existing situation. In explanation of subclause 2 of clause 1 of the bill I would point out that the original paragraph con- tained in the act relating to out-patient services, excluded drugs, biologicals and re- lated preparations as well as accommodation and meals as a part of out-patient services. The provinces have requested that this amendment be made since it is considered that such services form an essential part of out-patient treatment. As in the case of in- patient services, however, it is proposed that drugs should not be provided on a take- home basis. In so far as meals and accommodation are concerned it is felt the availability of these services on an out-patient basis will tend to deter admissions to hospitals. It is con- sidered, therefore, that by expanding out- patient services in this manner the volume of in-patient services can be reduced in cer- tain circumstances. With respect to clause 2 of the amending bill I have already mentioned that five provinces have expressed their desire to commence operating provincial programs in accordance with the federal legislation as of July 1, 1958. The federal government would be precluded from making contributions to these provinces unless the present section 6 (2) of the act were amended. From the discussions which have taken place in this house it is obvious that the government's initiative in expediting the program is welcome. Following my announcement last January of the government's intention to propose this amendment, provincial planning has been stimulated with the result that almost half of the provinces will be enabled to commence programs at least six months earlier than would otherwise have been possible. Prior to this debate some mention was made in the house concerning the costs to the federal treasury arising out of this amendment. While a precise determination of these costs is difficult without reference to prior ex- perience, officials of my department estimate that the cost to the federal government of making contributions as of July 1 to the five [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] provinces which have indicated their read- iness to commence on that date will amount to approximately $30 million for the remain- ing six months in 1958. Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean): Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago when I made a speech in this house on this bill I deplored the fact that the minister up to that point had obtained the signature of only one contributing province which would take advantage of this bill. The minister has since announced that he has obtained the signature of the province of Newfoundland and that that province has now become en- titled to the full benefits of the Hospital In- surance and Diagnostic Services Act. I con- gratulate the minister on having obtained this signature and I hope he will succeed in obtaining many more so the act can come into effect on July 1 in respect of at least five provinces. The minister mentioned a moment ago that five provinces have expressed a desire to come under the terms of this act. This is about the third or fourth time he has said they were desirous of doing so but I cannot understand why they do not sign an agree- ment. Surely the provinces have had suffi- cient time to sign and I cannot understand why they should delay. Up until last week only the province of Ontario had signed an agreement. Another thing which we on this side of the house would like to have explained is how the plans are going to operate. I un- derstand that Ontario has a limited plan which will include diagnostic services for in-patients only and not for out-patients. Mr. Monteith (Perth): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is not so. Diagnostic services for out-patients in accident cases are being provided in the Ontario agreement. Mr. Martin (Essex East): But only for that; that is very limited. Mr. Monteith (Perth): That is not what the bon. member said. Mr. Bourque: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that in the Ontario agreement there was included diagnostic services only for in-patients. The minister says that is not so and I stand cor- rected. However, I believe that Newfound- land has a more complete health scheme than Ontario which includes diagnostic serv- ices for in-patients as well as out-patients. We on this side of the house are wondering therefore just what kind of schemes the provinces will have. Will it be a plan to cover the same services in each province or will each province have a different scheme? That is very important to the average person HOUSE OF COMMONS1396 because if a citizen in Newfoundland is going to receive more than a citizen in Ontario under this plan we should know why and what the differences are. I have another question for which I would like an explanation. I read in this morning's paper that Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia were intending to sign an agree- ment and would take advantage of the pro- visions of the amended act on July 1. If they have not signed as yet how can the minister tell this house that these provinces will have agreements in effect on July 1? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I said that the indi- cations were that they would be; we have every expectation of that. Mr. Bourque: Well, Mr. Minister, you have not signed them up as yet. I am sorry but as an old salesman I am keenly aware of the fact that unless you get a signature on the dotted line you cannot consider that you have made a sale and you cannot collect your commission on the transaction. If we are going to live on promises we will not get very far, you know. Mr. Smith (Calgary South): You have had lots of experience with that. Mr. Bourque: You have already told us that three other provinces are going to sign. What about the other five provinces? As a member from Quebec I would be very much interested in knowing how far you have progressed in obtaining the signature of that province. Mr. Monteith (Perth): If you had been in the house on the debate on the resolution you would know about these things. Mr. Martin (Essex East): He was here. Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the discussion is getting a trifle informal for such a serious matter. There will be an opportunity in com- mittee to discuss the details of these clauses of the bill. If we could continue the debate and relate it to the principle of the bill and try to get into committee, it would be helpful. Mr. Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that we could ask the minister questions on his statement at this time as to what the plans were and what progress had been made. We are very interested in having the plan put into operation. Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will have an opportunity in committee to ask questions. Mr. Martin (Essex East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if it could be under- stood that there would be no denial of the right to discuss the principle of the bill as well as the clauses, that could be done. In other words, this is a small bill and if we Hospital Insurance Act could proceed with it at this particular stage of the proceedings on that basis we would have no objection but it could be done only on that understanding. Mr. Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I am very in- terested in finding out if the minister had personally approached the premier of each province. As a member from the province of Quebec I was just wondering what the reaction of the premier of that province had been with regard to signing this pact. We have in this house a very large number of pseudo-Conservative members who belong to the Union Nationale and I am sure they must have something to say about this affair al- though we have not yet heard from any of them. So far as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, I cannot see how the minister can say that he expects them to follow on July 1, because so far he has not been able to tell us that these prov- inces have signed. The closest he bas come to that is that he has said they expressed a desire to sign. There is a great difference between signing and expressing the desire to sign. When we were in power and on the other side of the house the minister of national health and welfare at that time said that we could not include tubercular and mental cases. As I said before-and I have no answer to it yet-all those tubercular and mental cases which were in provincial in- stitutions were under the care of the prov- inces. The contention of the previous government was that tubercular and mental cases were the responsibility of the provin- cial governments. At that time the opposition, now the government, maintained that they should be under the act. Of course, the Lib- eral government at that time felt- Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again but I do not see anything in the bill about the matter which he is dis- cussing, namely tubercular and mental cases. It seems to me the principle of the bill is narrower than that and he is beyond the point of relevance when he attempts to dis- cuss tubercular and mental cases. Mr. Martin (Essex East): May I with respect suggest to you that is hardly the case. The point the hon. gentleman has in mind is that when hon. gentlemen now on the treasury benches were on this side they thought that the measure introduced by the government was deficient in that it did not include certain insurable illnesses. What the hon, gentleman is now doing is pointing out this fact and indicating to the administration that it has the power and the opportunity of doing those things. It is not doing what it JUNE 18, 1958 1397 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act proposed when it was on this side of the house should be done. I have no doubt that the observation and the argument the hon. member is making are quite correct. Mr. Speaker: I am not questioning the cor- rectness of what he is saying but I am ques- tioning whether it is relevant to this bill which is an amending bill. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Yes, it is an amending bill. Mr. Speaker: It is a bill amending an act passed by the previous administration. The fact that it amends certain sections does not open up a discussion of the whole act. As I remember the act, it excluded mental and tuberculosis cases. That is another clause of the act not affected by this bill. I would think that we would be going far afield if we permitted discussion of principles other than those involved in the amendment. Mr. Martin (Essex East): With great respect, I can very well understand Your Honour taking that position, but the hon. gentleman has made the argument that five provinces may sign before July 1, 1958. He bas said he hoped that they would and that others might. Some of the provinces take a very strong position that tuberculosis and mental illness should be included and it may well be-I intend to ask pretty searching ques- tions on this-that one of the reasons why they have not signed is that the present administration is adhering to the very prac- tice and policy followed by the previous ad- ministration with regard to these exclusions. We would be precluded from discussing what is one of the essential elements in this whole matter of progress if the hon. gentleman and others were prevented from making that kind of observation. Mr. Speaker: I am not convinced, I must say, that we can broaden out into that. I will allow the hon. member to proceed. Perhaps he will not find it necessary to get too far afield. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I do not think there is too much danger of that. Mr. Bourque: Mr. Speaker, you said a few moments ago that this was an amendment to the original legislation. There is little change in the legislation that the previous govern- ment introduced and this amending bill. It really is a tribute to the Liberal government for having introduced such a measure. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I believe that tuberculosis and mental patients form part of the bill and their inclusion is a very important part of the bill because if they are to be left out- [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace): If it forms part of the bill can the hon. member refer to any clause? Mr. Bourque: I am coming to that if the hon. member will wait only a few minutes. Mr. Small: You are the ones who promised it 40 years ago. Mr. Bourque: Forty years ago. That is before you had power. You were in power in 1930. If you thought it was such a good measure then you could have brought it in. The opposition at that time made an issue of it, Mr. Speaker. They complained about the fact that we did not include tubercular and mental cases. I believe they had two votes on the matter at that time. Why did they not put it in this bill? If they thought it was such a good thing when they were in opposition why did they not include it in this bill? Not only did they make an issue of it in the house but they made it an election issue. It was one of the election promises of the government across the way. Today we see nothing in the bill about tubercular and mental cases. They talked a lot about it but they are doing nothing about it today. I want to follow your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the government across the way when they were in opposition brought up all kinds of things when we tried to present this measure. When I read the bill I was surprised to find that they are not carrying out what they said should be done when they were on this side of the house. This amendment makes only a slight change to the legislation brought in by the previous government. I think it is a tribute to the Liberal government to find that now that these people are in power they see so little to change in the legislation originally presented by the Liberal government. Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I, as you did a few minutes ago, fail to see anything about tubercular and mental patients in this bill. I would have liked to see some- thing in the bill in that regard. Following your suggestion, I will refrain from getting into that phase of hospital insurance cover- age. Needless to say, we are in favour of the principles embodied in the bill, the main part of which appears to me to be the advancement of six months in the application of it and the removal of the restriction which required a certain number of provinces rep- resenting a certain portion of the population to have such schemes in operation before any federal participation would take place. I was very pleased to hear the minister, not only on the resolution stage but on second reading of the bill make reference to the expectation that five provinces would have 1398 JUNE 18, 1958 signed agreements and would be covered by July 1, with the added information that other provinces are contemplating establishing plans by way of legislation and that in the imme- diate future we hope to have another three or four at least, and I hope 10 eventually, participating completely in such a plan. I think we might ask ourselves this question. Why was it that after the enact- ment of the legislation which this bill is intended to amend there was a sudden in- crease in interest on the part of the various provincial governments in instituting hos- pital insurance plans whereas in prior years some of them, at least so far as public knowledge is concerned, did not appear to be too interested in establishing hospital insurance coverage plans such as the one that has been in effect in my own province for a number of years? I think we can find the answer to that question very easily. The mere fact that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was placed on the statute books a few years ago indicated to the provinces that here was a source of financial assistance to them if they wanted to put hospital insurance programs into effect. It acted as a stimulus to those provinces to think in terms of providing provincial schemes. If it were not for the fact that the former Liberal administration introduced such a measure, even though it did not go far enough toward meeting the over-all problem of health care, whereby they would participate with the provinces, some of the provinces that are indicating interest today would probably not have either plans in effect or plans for enacting legislation within the next little while in order to achieve this purpose. I am sure that it was only because the act was put into effect and the federal government indicated a desire to participate that provincial interest was stimulated to the point where, as the minister indicated, there will be five provinces participating, he hopes, by July 1, and in the not too distant future a number of other provinces, including the province of Quebec which has indicated interest. Therefore in the not too distant future, I hope within a year or two, all ten provinces will get into the picture because of the fact that the act was a stimulus to them. The result will be that we will have fairly uniform, all-inclusive hospital insurance coverage across the nation. As I said earlier, the principle of the bill is acceptable. It is all right but it is lacking to a great degree. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will refrain from calling me to order for a few minutes and I will try not to say things that will cause you to call me to order. In dealing with the principle of the Hospital Insurance Act bill I feel I must express our view that the bill is deficient in that, as has been stated by the C.C.F. for many years, it does not go far enough toward providing the type of all-inclusive health coverage that the people of Canada should have and that we should give to them. Because the present act was a stimulus to a number of provinces to enact legislation providing hospital insurance plans, surely we can expect that if any leadership at all is shown by the government in providing for all-inclusive medical and dental care under the present act there will be an equal stimulus to the provinces to expand their present hospital insurance schemes in order that they will cover medical, dental and other care necessary under an all-inclusive health scheme. In that respect we think there is a great deficiency not only in the bill but in the original act. I can only hope that a Con- servative government will be a little more speedy in its acceptance of ideas put forward from this corner of the house than was the former Liberal administration and will not wait until they may think it is politically advantageous to expand the act to provide medical and dental services and an all-in- clusive health scheme. I trust that they will do so at tie earliest possible moment so that we can provide leadership and stimulate the provinces to expand their schemes. In that way we will not merely be providing hospital insurance coverage or participating in paying bils for people who become ill but will be taking definite corrective measures in the first instance to prevent them from becoming ill and having to go to hospital. I hope the few remarks I have made will be taken to heart by the minister and gov- ernment. I know that it will not take place during this session but I hope that between now and the next session of the house the government will undertake a study and pro- vide the necessary leadership in order that we may have an all-inclusive health plan in Canada. Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, in listening with great interest to the debate as it has developed and the arguments about the proposed amendments, I think it has become quite clear that about all that opposition members have been able to do is to say that we should go further. I think that view is perhaps shared by every member of the house, but on that basis I do not think it would make any difference to what length the government might go at a particular time because there would always be those who would say, "It would be nice to go further." HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act In my opinion there is one thing we must consider particularly at this time when the budget has been brought forward, and that is cost. I think it is quite obvious to all of us that if we are going to urge the govern- ment to go farther in one direction we must be prepared to suggest curtailment in another direction or propose some other means of raising money for the purpose of going further with hospital insurance. It gives me pleasure this afternoon to be able to suggest a new means of raising money for these purposes. It is a means not being used now by the government and I believe it would not cost the people of Canada or the government one cent more than they are paying now. It is something that is clearly desired by the people of Canada. I refer to a sweepstakes for hospital purposes. There have been many editorials in various news- papers. Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. mem- ber does not propose to embark on a debate in support of sweepstakes because that has nothing to do with the bill. Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, I think the question of financing should be an aspect of concern to all mem- bers. It is perhaps the main consideration behind the advancement of any social wel- fare measure. We must be concerned with the cost of doing these things. As many arguments have been put forward that we should go further, I think it is certainly fair to suggest a means of financing. Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member. While costs and the means of raising the money are important, that is not what is before the house. The principle that is being discussed is the prin- ciple of a rather narrow amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I would ask the hon. member not to venture into the field of sweepstakes this afternoon. Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway): Per- haps I have already made my point, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I say we should not continually urge the government to go further with these measures without suggesting some means of financing them. Perhaps now that I have made the point, the government will give consideration to using that means to finance it. (Translation): Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose- moni): Mr. Speaker, I only have a few brief remarks to offer, first of all to point out that this unemployment insurance legislation [Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway).] was originally brought forward by the pre- ceding Liberal government and meets the urgent needs of the people of Canada. When in 1948 Mr. Mackenzie King in- troduced his national health program, he pointed out that grants for hospital con- struction throughout the country were to be considered as the fundamental basis of a national health insurance program. In the years that followed, the former prime min- ister stated clearly, on more than one occa- sion, that the Canadian government's policy still consisted in supporting a contributory health insurance plan to be administered by the provinces. This was an excellent formula, one requiring no constitutional amendment, and which allowed the federal government to give financial assistance to provincial ad- ministrations, thus respecting provincial autonomy in the fields of public health. It is a plan financed by all Canadians. The object of the hospital insurance act is to serve the interests of every province. Let us hope that all provinces will avail themselves of the benefits of the act and of the proposed amendment since it would obviously be un- fair if the people of one province, who, in the last analysis will be called upon to pay for the plan in operation in another province, cannot enjoy the benefits of this legislation within their own province. Now, with regard to this act and the proposed amendment, I would like to offer a few remarks about the hospital needs of the province of Quebec. Some years ago, the Quebec deputy minister of social welfare said that about 80 per cent of the citizens of our province cannot afford the costs of a prolonged stay in hospital. About a week ago, a delegation of the hospitals council, made up of 39 institutions, sought financial assistance from the city of Montreal. Dr. Turner, who was heading the delegation, said that the hospital problem is so acute that, unless they get immediate assistance, many hospitals will close down. We have debts and salaries to pay, he said. Under the circumstances, the people of the province of Quebec were entitled to expect a more positive and progressive stand on the part of the provincial government. Since 1955, and 1956 too I believe, we have offered the provinces to join this plan and to get ready for it so as to make it available to the people of our province. Today, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we are no further ahead than we were at the time. Indeed, I shall quote a statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec, which I think has a bearing on this subject. It is from a Canadian Press report dated October JUNE 18. 1959 25, 1955. It shows in a few words haw the premier of the province of Quebec feels about this hospital insurance plan. "The premier of the province of Quebec today discounted the possîbility of the province joining in a national hospitalization insurance plan. It was stated by the premier that the systein of charitable institutions now existing is better adapted ta the people of his province." And there we have the reason why an this l8th day of June 1958, the people in Quebec have no inkling as ta when this legisiation will apply ta their province. 1 sincerely hope that autharities-busy thaugh they be at the moment patching up certain gas leakage- wiil manage ta find time ta allow haspitals ta benefit from this hospital insurance plan. Mr. Speaker, I have therefore shown that this legisiation is one of the most beneficiai steps taken by the previaus Liberal adminis- tration and that it meets urgent needs. Ac- cordingly I hope that Quebec autharities will soon take positive steps so that, like other provinces, we might enjoy the benefits of this act. Hawever, even if Quebec authorities do act, I believe that the lass of time of the last twa or three years has been s0 great that, in due course, the provincial gavernmnent wili have ta answer for its seriaus derelictian of duty in this regard. (Text): Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins): Mr. Speaker, since remarks at this particular stage are confined ta the principle of the bill, my remarks wiil have ta, be very brief. I do not believe there is tao much principle about which ta talk. Han. members of the Lîberal party ta my left have made particular com- ments on the narrowness of the amendment before this bouse. I toa, Mr. Speaker, f eel that the amendment is îndeed very limited, especially when we consider the important amendments that could have been made ta this very inadequate act. Certainly, I feel the government did not extend themselves an this particular amendment. However, I arn afraid that I cannot agree with the conclusion ta which members of the opposition came, that the only reasan for the limitation of the amendment was the excellence of the previaus bill, and they take this as a special tribute ta the previaus governrnent. I fail tn agree in that respect, and I would say that rather than takîng it as a tribute ta the previous government it is Hospital Insurance Act more in the nature of discredit to the present government. In uine with that I feel that the first proof of the inadequacy of the bill itself is the fact that it had to be amended six months before it came into operation. I believe that is proof beyond doubt that the bill itself was flot very good. I should like ta remind government members, as they well know, that it taok 40 years ta take this first step. Certainly, when a baby ceases ta creep and starts ta walk, he should not start creeping ail aver again. It would be rnuch better if hie could improve his walking and start walk- ing upright. I would suggest that we could have amendments of the nature of the one we have before us today every manth for the next 40 years, and we would stili be far fram having an adequate health insurance bill. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): I shouid like ta make a few comments on this bill. Having been made aware of Yaur Honour's alertness today, I wouid suggest that Yaur Honour read yesterday's Hansard ta see the circumstances under which, on behalf of thase of us onl this side of the house, it was gen- eraliy agreed we wauld give quick passage ta the resalutian. If it had flot been for that, I suppose we would stili be discussing the resolution. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in expressing his disappaintment at the ex- tent ta which this amendment goes, forgot I believe the tremendous expenditures that are now being borne by ail levels of gavern- ment in Canada in the matter of health and welfare. Mr. Howard: But I remembered the ex- penditures that people make. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Quite so. I arn not saying this crîticaily. However, I think it is important ta realize the extent; ta whieh -even above that, if my hon. friend wishes ta put it that way-pragress in this very important field has taken place. I note that in the 12 years from. 1946 ta 1956-57 expen- ditures af the federal governiment in the field of health and social welfare rase from. $41 million ta $1,331 million. I note also that on a per capita basis the 1956 figures of health and welf are benefits paid by three compa- rable governments-the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada-show $121 million for Canada, $97 million for the United King- dom and $138 million for the United States. From those figures it is apparent that our HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act expenditures cover a wide range and, to put it in a very conservative way, certainly are comparable with those of other countries. I believe it is not generally recognized how the cost of health benefits to the Canadian people through all of their governments, federal, provincial and municipal, compare with corresponding -costs in other countries. I know that comparisons are difficult to make but the best information available indicates that in 1956 benefits paid by all levels of government in Canada cost 6.5 per cent of the gross national product as compared with 8.5 per cent in the United Kingdom and 5.7 per cent in the United States. While I agree with the hon. member for Skeena who, in my opinion, the other day, made one of the best speeches in this debate, I do not think that it is objective treatment to overlook the great progress that has been made, as I am pre- pared to argue, within the last decade or so. As the minister indicated, the purpose of this bill is three-fold. It is to bring in basically three amendments, two of which are relatively minor in character and are covered by one section of the bill and a third and more important one dealing with the conditions under which the federal govern- ment may begin to share with the provinces in the cost of their hospital insurance schemes. I may say to the minister that so far as I am concerned little can be said about the first two amendments. As he indicates, the one is clarifying what was really intended and what I think is still implicit in the actual wording of the original measure. With regard to the other, that providing for meals and the like, I think that is a necessary step. I have looked over the section and I still think it could be argued that such provision is in- cluded in the present bill; but if the provinces find that it is desirable to have that provision clearly stated, of course there can be no exception taken for the reasons the minister has mentioned. Those who will take advan- tage of the diagnostic services within the hospital will require to spend some time in a hospital and that procedure will include necessarily, under certain conditions, taking meals in the hospital. Making that provision possible and authorizing the federal govern- ment to share in the cost of such provision is one way, as the minister has stated, of avoiding any abuse in the matter of bed occupancy. But with regard to the main amendment, I think that we must give some consideration to the circumstances-again I am not disagreeing with it-and to point out that the fact that this measure is now being introduced confirms the assertion made by hon. members on this side of the house that [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] the government has not prosecuted this par- ticular matter, in so far as other provinces are concerned, with the vigour it is felt on this side should have been employed. As the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) pointed out, the minister bas indicated that he hopes he will be able to sign agreements not only with the provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland but by July 1 with the prov- inces of British Columbia, Alberta and Sas- katchewan, three more provinces. Mr. Monteith (Perth): And Manitoba. Mr. Martin (Essex East): And Manitoba. I am sorry to have overlooked that province. He therefore hopes that by July 1 of this year he will have signed agreements with six provinces. I can assure my hon. friend that I join with all other hon. members in expressing the hope that there will be no doubt that on July 1 that will be the case. But it is a little bit difficult to understand why there should have been any delay what- soever in having agreements signed long be- fore this with the province of British Colum- bia, the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan. In the case of the province of Alberta I note that when Dr. Ross, the health minister from Alberta, was in Ottawa some time about the end of May he was reported as saying that one of the stumbling blocks was the requirement that the provinces provide both technical and professional costs for diagnostic tests. The principle involved, he thought, was that insisting on this re- quirement meant that the federal govern- ment was dictating levels of service. I should be greatly interested in what the minister has to say about that matter because I am fairly familiar with that argument. Is that the only reason why Alberta bas not been able to sign the agreement? Or is it because-as I think the minister last night suggested-some examination was still being made of the character of the scheme itself in Alberta? The minister now nods approval, that that is the real reason. I can under- stand that, although I wonder why that is the case in Alberta. Is it because of the necessary participation, under the Alberta act, of the municipalities in terms of sharing the costs? Or is it because the scheme covers only a percentage of the population of Alberta and consequently does not come within the condition of universal availability, the phrase envisaged in the proposal made by the federal government? What about British Columbia? British Columbia has had a hospital insurance scheme in being now for a long time. What is the difficulty? What is the attitude taken by the province of British Columbia? The 1402 minister last night, in the report that he gave, did not give us the reasons why British Co- lumbia has not yet signed an agreement. I think the house should be given that infor- mation. It may be that arguments have de- veloped which f ormerly were not thought to be valid but which might on reconsideration be thought to be valid today. I am not saying that is the case. In any event, my curiosity in this matter I think will be under- standable when I say that we ought to be informed as to exactly why provinces with schemes now in being have flot yet signed agreements with the federal government. What is the situation with regard to Sas- katchewan? That is a province which has had a scheme in being now for some considerable length of time, longer than any other prov- ince. It is a province that has acquired con- siderable know-how and experience with regard to this matter, and one that needs this additional money. Why has no agree- ment been signed with this province to date? We will be able to judge from the replies given by the minister with respect to the reason why no agreement has thus far been signed and as to what assessment we really should make of the likelihood of an agree- ment being signed before July 1. It may be that the minister will find very considerable support for the positions he may have had to take with respect to these matters. In any event, as he knows, for some time now I have been asking him in this bouse, both during the present session and more particularly last flU, as to the reasons why agreements have not been signed and were flot; signed last fali with any province and only now are they being signed with two provinces. The same kind of interrogation might be pursued with respect to Manitoba, although the hon. minister says that Manitoba will be coming into the scheme, and I hope that the events of Monday last will not cause any delay in that particular. I would like to know, for instance, why Prince Edward Island has not been able to corne in and why is it that Nova Scotia, wbile announcing that it will come in by July 1, 1959, has not yet found it possible to sign an agreement? The same is true of the province of New Brunswick, that prov- i.nce having announced that it proposes to begin a scheme on January 1, 1959. Why is it, if that is the case, that that province has also flot found it possible to sign an agreement Up to the present time? I do not say this in any critical way, and Ihope the minister will not misunderstand me, but I take it that the reason for this amendment being introduced at this time is because the province of Ontario, having Hospital Insurance Act decided to embark upon a scheme must flot be put into the position where, having taken ail the necessary steps to implement this huge undertaking in what is the largest province of Canada, it cannot be assured of a contribu- tion being made to the cost of that scheme by the federal government at the starting date of January 1, 1959. I take it that that is the main reason for this particular legisiation, and I do not quarrel with that reason. As I have men- tioned on another occasion, I indicated to Premier Frost in the spring of 1957 that if six provinces had flot complied with the terms of section 2 of the main act, we wouid by the end of September have taken steps to make it possible to pay our share to Ontario as well to other consenting provinces in a manner different from that provided by section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. I think therefore it is a fair argument-as has already been sug- gested-that if the goverfiment had pursued this matter with vigour last f ail, and if it had really urged the provinces as it is apparently now doing to sign these agree- ments, it would flot have been necessary to bring forward this legisiation. Instead of hav- ing six provinces sign this agreement by July 1, 1958, we would perhaps have had the actual signatures of two other provinces thereby making this scheme more nation-wide in scope than wfll now be the case. To show that this is not mere fancy, I would like to turn to what I said in this house on October 17 last, when we were discussing inter alia the matter of interim, supply. I quote from page 81 in volume 1 of Hansard of that date, when in addressing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) I said as follows: Now, we are surely entitled to know whether any progress at ail has been made In this matter. The province of Ontario has indicated that it proposes ta implement jts scheme on January 1, 1959, and when I last conferred with themi in my own capacity as Mmlister of National Health and Welf are I was lnformed by the premnier of Ontario that not later than the end of September he should be in a position to know definitely whether or not the federal government would be able, pursuant to the act, ta provide the government of Ontario with its share of the cost of the operation of the Ontario scheme. Unlesa some progreas has been made I amn afraid this situation is not calculated ta give much encour- agement. If Ontario is going ta begin its scheme on January 1. 1959, unless it is ta bear the full coat itself it must imrnediately know whether the other five consentiflg provinces wlll have con- formed ta the requirements of the hospital Insur- ance act. since that legislation provides that the federal money shall be paid only when these six consenting provinces have schemes In being and in support of which the proclamation of the measures under which they operate has taken place. In other words their legislation must be in force and their scheme must be in force. JUNE 18. 1958 1403 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act And then later on I said-and this is significant: If no agreements have been signed, well then, it is clear that Ontario's position, in so far as the starting date announced by the premier is concerned, is in great jeopardy unless the minister is prepared at some later date to suggest to this committee that there should be an amendment to the act to provide for payments on a basis not now envisaged by the hospital insurance act itself. I think that clearly indicates and confirms the situation which I have just pictured. The reason for this legislation is, quite properly, in order not to embarrass the province of Ontario which has taken such steps. This legislation has become necessary but could have been avoided if this government had taken vigorous steps during last summer and fall to bring about the signing of an agree- ment with the six provinces which had con- sented prior to the election of June 1957 to the scheme introduced by the previous ad- ministration. There is another point which I think should be made by those of us who are on this side of the house. That is with respect to those provinces which will now be the beneficiaries of this particular amendment. If it is justified for this government to now pay out money to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, how does the minister justify not having paid moneys out to Saskatchewan, to British Columbia and to Alberta long before this? By what principle does this government arrive at this particular type of payment to these provinces? It could be argued, in so far as the last administration is concerned, that payments were conditional upon the existence of six schemes being in force, but that condition does not appear in the present amendment. So how does the minister justify not having paid out this money in advance of this situation which has developed to those three provinces which had schemes in being long before July 1, 1958? It is not for me to champion the cause of these three provinces, none of which is my own province, but as a citizen of Canada I believe we have a right to expect that all provinces will be treated on the same basis of principle and equity and I suggest that having refused to take this position from June 25, 1957 until the present time it will now be very difficult for the administration to explain to the provinces of British Co- lumbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan why it is now taking steps to provide for a sharing of costs by the federal government only as of July 1, 1958. The minister does not find this to his liking, and possibly when he replies he will indicate exactly what he means when he expresses disagreement with my point of view. If I am [Mr. Martin (Essex East)] wrong, I would like to be told, but I am sure that is a perfectly defensible position and hon. gentlemen opposite who were on this side of the house argued that the existing pro- vision in the act was not fair to those pro- vinces which had schemes then in being. If it was unfair a year and a half ago surely under circumstances that are much less restrictive it would be difficult not to argue that the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta should have been reimbursed by the administration long before this. The minister was good enough to table the agreement made with Newfoundla'nd and the one made with Ontario. He will recall that when he announced the agreement with New- foundland I asked him in this house whether or not the agreement with Newfoundland was on the same terms as that with the province of Ontario and the minister's reply was that both agreements were under the act. That was not my question as I indicated by my comment which went unnoticed and uncom- mented upon by the minister. I do find that the agreements are not the same. It is not that I am criticizing the differences in the agreements but I think it should be pointed out, as was remarked upon by the hon. mem- ber for Durham (Mr. Vivian) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan)-and quite properly so-that the two agreements do not provide exactly the same benefits in the case of Ontario and Newfoundland. There is no quarrel in so far as the federal govern- ment is concerned. It is up to each province to decide the extent to which it wishes to take advantage of the federal legislation and I am not criticizing my hon. friend but it is interesting to point out that in the case of Ontario the province only accepts the diag- nostic services program to the extent of in-patients and with regard to emergency cases in the category of out-patients. Mr. Monieith (Perth): Are you criticizing the province of Ontario for that? Mr. Martin (Essex East): Yes, I certainly intend to comment on it. As a citizen of On- tario I do not see why the province of Ontario does not take full advantage of the hospital and diagnostic services provisions just as Newfoundland has taken full advantage of those provisions in its agreement and just as I am sure the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba-the latter being the only province that now bas a com- plete diagnostic services program for both out-patients and in-patients-will take ad- vantage of the federal offer. It is not up to us to require any province to do this. As a parliament or a government we cannot force 1404 our will on the provinces. The diagnostic services proposal which is a feature of this legislation is an extremely important matter. It is true that the total costs of the diagnostic services are not as great as the hospital insur- ance feature, costing some $48 million as compared with a minimum of $180 million- assuming the ten provinces participate-and any one who has given this matter great care and thought such as has the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) will agree with me that if there is any real reform and service needed to give assistance to the ordinary people of this country in the matter of health services it is in placing at their disposal the most complete form of diagnostic services so that rich and poor, all classes in the community, can have the ad- vantage at this time of the great skills and knowledge of medical science. The only way that can be done is by an adequate system of diagnostic services. I have my own reasons for noting the limitation in the Ontario agreement and these I discussed with the appropriate authorities in Ontario when I held the portfolio of national health and welfare. The two agree- ments are not identical in that one does accept fully all the diagnostic services provided by the federal government and the other accepts them with limitations. I note that in the case of the agreement with Ontario the provisions for coverage are not as immediately complete. I am not criti- cizing this but I do wish to point out that the provisions with regard to Ontario are not as complete as they are in the case of New- foundland. I am not quarrelling with that in so far as Ontario is concerned because the job of preparation in Ontario is a gigantic one and certainly much more difficult than the assignment that is placed in the hands of the government of Newfoundland, a smaller province. The fact is that the prin- ciple of universal availability is given im- mediate effect in the agreement with Newfoundland and that principle in the sense of immediate association with the scheme in Ontario is not open to every citizen. The principle of compulsion extends to a limited group in the preparatory stage with voluntary participation being open and available in succeeding periods. By the way, if there is any disagreement between the minister and myself on the ex- tent of coverage between the two agreements that have been tabled relating to the prov- inces of Ontario and Newfoundland I would refer my hon. friend to the press release which he made on June 9 in which he observed that: The In-patient services are the same- Hospital Insurance Act With respect to the province of Newfoundland. -as those to be made available in Ontario as a result of the agreement signed with that province on March 3, 1958. The significant point there is that my hon. friend mentioned only the in-patient services and not the out-patient services. There is one other feature of this measure on which I believe the minister should in- form the house. The costs of this proposal are great. We believe-and I am sure the min- ister agrees-that with proper care and ad- ministration on the part of the provincial governments the increasing costs need not involve any more than those considerations that would add to the cost of any commodity in our society and that by careful administra- tion the total cost of this all over the country need not be any higher than the present cost of hospitalization administered either through provincial hospital insurance schemes or, in most provinces, through voluntary schemes or by private participation. The hon. member for Durham in the ex- cellent speech he made a few weeks ago pointed out that one should not anticipate the millenium with regard to this kind of measure and that there would be many prob- lems attendant on the administration of this act, such as hospital construction, the supply of the necessary personnel and other things. I admit all that but I am sure he would be the first to agree that if we waited until we had every facility at our disposal we would never make any progress in these matters at all. The fact is, however, as the hon. member for Welland said, the national health program about which the minister had something to say today in reply to a question was responsible in co-operation with the provinces in laying down the necessary and preparatory work towards the justifiable realization of hospital insurance in Canada. When we had this measure in hand it was anticipated, if I remember correctly, that the total cost of this measure to the federal gov- ernment apart from diagnostic services and assuming the participation of all provinces would be $180 million. The whole scheme is to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400 million, the federal government as- suming roughly 50 per cent of the cost of the scheme based upon the formula of 25 per cent of the average per capita cost in the province and 25 per cent of the average per capita cost in the nation itself. I have been wondering what the cost figures are today since hospital costs vary from one province to another. My hon. friend will agree of course that the formula for distribution of the federal share endeavours to take into account JUNE 18, 1958 1405 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act the cost factor as well as providing incentive to efficiency and economy of operation. The proposed federal contribution on a nationwide basis amounted to 50 per cent, as I said, of the total estimated shareable costs, or a minimum in the first year by the federal government, as I said, of some $180 million when all provinces were in. There- fore, the scheme is one that will cost the nation as a minimum in the first year of operation, assuming the participation of all 10 provinces, something in the neighbourhood of $400 million. Is that still the estimate of the government? It will be interesting to know whether or not that estimate is now higher. If it is higher- Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been allowing the bon. member a good deal of latitude in this particular matter but I think he goes beyond what is under debate in dealing with costs of the scheme and asking questions about the cost of the whole scheme. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Well, so far as the last observation is concerned I will not quarrel with you. What I am seeking to do is to ascertain from the minister the reason why some provinces have not yet come in. Undoubtedly, the cost involved is one of the reasons. For instance, I would like to know from the minister whether or not the alloca- tions to the various provinces will continue to be the sane. Under the scheme as originally proposed--and the formula still obtains-New- foundland is actually to receive an estimated 72 per cent of the shareable cost; Prince Edward Island, 65 per cent; New Brunswick, 59 per cent; Nova Scotia, 57 per cent; Quebec, 53 per cent; and Manitoba, 51 per cent. On the other hand, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario were to receive slightly less than 50 per cent of their total costs. When the m-inister replies I would like to know-and this has a very great bearing-whether or not these figures have changed because of cost factors. If they have changed, did it in any way contribute to the attitude taken by any one of the provinces? I think the house welcomes this amend- ment, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have stated. We on this side of the house think this amendment could have been avoided if the government had pursued this matter earlier with the vigour which I know the minister himself would like to have pursued it. What are the reasons why we are in this particular situation today? What are the reasons for the attitude taken by the three provinces which have schemes in being? Why is it that they have not signed agreements up until the present time? The answers to these questions will not only [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] satisfy my curiosity, which I think is under- standable because I lived with this question for some time, but it will also give the house an indication as to what are the pros- pects, for instance, in the province of Quebec. The premier of that province said the other day that the hospital construction program of Quebec was a preparatory stage to the hospital insurance project being realized in the province of Quebec. Has the government received any indication, as was asked a moment ago by the bon. member for Outre- mont-St. Jean, from the premier of Quebec in this regard? Have there been any con- tacts between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his opposite number in the government of Quebec, or has it been thought that the best way to deal with that situation was to do it vicariously through officials. The answers to some of these ques- tions will be of great interest to the house and will contribute to the day when we shall have a nationwide scheme of hospital insur- ance all over this country. This amendment is an amendment to an act introduced in this parliament in 1956, and the very fact that the government brings forward an amendment only in the terms that it does, without any provision to cover the things which it alleged on this side of the house should be included, such as those things referred to by other hon. members, is perhaps the best tribute to and confirmation of this matter that the previous administra- tion could possibly receive. (Translation): Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard): Mr. Speaker, I would not like to prolong this debate unduly but, considering the importance of this matter, and as a young member representing a new constituency where the average age is rela- tively low, I take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks. When the hospital insurance program was introduced by the Liberal government and adopted by the house, a section was inserted in it to the effect that the plan would not be implemented until six provinces, repre- senting half of the population of Canada, would join the plan. The aim of that section, as was explained by the then minister, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was to encourage the provinces to join in without delay and that section, as the present Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has himself admitted, got results for he told us, on May 30th last, that al] the provinces, except Quebec, were prepared to join. In fact, he stated that the province of Ontario was ready to join as from January 1st, 1959, while British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland were willing ta implement that prograrn frorn July 1, 1958. Moreaver, he asserted that the provinces ai Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were ready ta corne in as from January 1, 1959 wbile Prince Edward Island would do so. a few rnonths later. The Minister ai National Health and Wei- fare naw asks us ta repeal the said section and ta replace it by another which would authorize the payment ai contributions ta all the provinces baving a hospital insurance plan li effect on July 1, 1958. This amend- ment, Mr. Speaker, bas become necessary because this gavernment bas shawn no in- terest in the matter since it carne ta power on June 10, 1957. Indeed, since that time, this gavernment bas dane nothing ta en- courage provinces ta join in the bospital insurance plan, and the amendment moved today by the minister is in itself an admission af gavernrnent inefficiency. In view ai the urgency and great import- ance af having the haspital insurance plan in force througbout this country, 1 cannot do otherwise than support the amendment rnoved by the minister. In the Canadian iamily, especially the average incame family, illness is a tragedy. For instance, I knaw in my constituency a iamiiy man wbo bas had some ai bis many children bospitaiized an repeated accasions. He bad ta ga beaviiy into debt ta pratect the bealth af bis cbildren and provide tbem with necessary care. Today be is desperate. Unabie ta pay bis debts or to stand his predicament, be had a nervous breakdown. Mr.'Speaker, as I said just now, iilness is a tragedy for tbese families. Very aiten, when someone in the family takes sick, people put off sending the sick one ta the baspital, because tbey lack the rnaney. At times, tbe persan dies as a resuit. Mr. Speaker, a rnoment ago I rnentioned the lack ai interest af the present gavernent in not encouraging provinces ta jain this bospital insurance plan. I wander what it has done, since it bas came ta power, ta encourage the provinces ta do so. To my mmnd it bas done nothing and yet it bas not lacked encouragement along those uines if we are ta believe the bon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Bissonnette) wbo on May 28, 1958, said, as can be seen on page 606 af the officiai report ai the debates af this bouse: I cannot help being interested In aur federal hospital insurance act. He added iurtber: I offer my full co-aperation to the Minister of Public Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteth)- Weil, Mr. Speaker, I would say ta the han. member for Quebec West, as well as ta al Hos pital Insurance Act members of the Union Nationale sitting on the government side of the house- Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker- Mr. Rouleau: -to kindly insist- Mr. Ricard: On a point af arder, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. member for Dallard that we are here as Conservative members and flot as representatives of the Union Nationale and while there are no grounds for being ashamed of the Union Nationale, we were elected under the sponsor- sbip af the Progressive Conservative party. The hon. member for Doilard is weli aware ai this and he sbould stick to that fact. Mr. Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I fail ta see how the hon. member could make it a point ai order, and I don't know whether I should construe his staternent as a denial ai the policy ai the premier ai Quebec. Mr. Ricard: Not at ail, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Habel: Gas included? Mr. Depuiy Speaker: Order! 1 have ta point out ta the han. member for Dollard that the Union Nationale party bas notbing ta do with this hause, and that recently elected members ta the federai parliament were labelled as Progressive Conservatives and sent here under the auspices af that party. Consequently, I would ask the hon. member for Dollard ta refer ta them as Conservative -members. Mr. Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly comply with your ruling. But I was also speaking about the co-operation which should, exist between the federal government and the' provincial gavernments, and especially the government of the province ai Quebec which is ruled by the Union Nationale, and which, I understand, bas iriends amongst hon. rnem- bers fram that province in thîs hause. I would therefore ask those hon. members who are thus on friendly terms- Mr. Ricard: What is wrang with that? Mr. Rouleau: -with the present goverfi- ment af the province af Quebec ta urge the leader ai that government ta accept tbe bospital insurance plan and give the citizens ai the province ai Quebec the same benefits as are affered ta the people ai otber provinces. Just as much as people af other provinces, Quebec people need the benefits provided by that act passed by the Liberal party. Tbe premier ai the province ai Quebec bas na right ta deprive them, the citizens ai bis province from the benefits ai that act. In fact, did he not say, not sa long ago, that there were too few hospitals in the province ai Quebec ta ailow for the adoption af an JUNE 18, 1958 1407 HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act hospital insurance plan? Is he not the one who often says, at his weekly press con- ferences, that he provided for the construction of more hospitals in the province of Quebec than were built in any other province of Canada? Well, if so many provincial governments felt that there are enough hospitals for the implementation of the hospital insurance scheme, I do not see why the Quebec govern- ment would not participate in the program put forward by the federal government. I do not believe that Quebec people, any more than people in other provinces, would take undue advantage of the implementation of an hospital plan. I make a special appeal to the present government and to Conservative members, since we must call them by that name,-I hope that it will please the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) -and ask them to exert pressure on Mr. Duplessis, the premier of the province of Quebec, whom they respect and honour, to have him agree to join, as soon as possible, in the hospital insurance program so that the people of that province may enjoy the same benefits as their fellow citizens of other provinces. Mr. Speaker, this hospital insurance plan would be a great deal healthier for the prov- ince of Quebec than natural gas. Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to note the absence of the former member for Montmagny-L'Islet who would certainly be shocked by the remarks of some Liberals who believe them- selves to be federalists, but who are more provincially minded than those whom they attack in this house. Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to ape the opposition which, since the session started, has been indulging in provincial politics in the federal house. The matters we have to deal with here are somewhat different from those that are being talked about elsewhere and, because members of the opposition were reduced both in numbers and in quality at the last election, they should now begin to realize that it is a bad practice to indulge in provincial politics in the federal parliament. If I may be allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, and since our opponents have already raised the matter, I would like to deal with this health insurance plan in so far as it concerns the province of Quebec. [Mr. Rouleau.] No one, I believe, is justified in criticizing the policies of the Union Nationale in the field of public health. It is one of the governments which have done most in Can- ada for the development, and the building of hospitals, and for the improvement of medical services- Mr. Martin(Essex East): With federal assist- ance. Mr. Valade: With provincial assistance. Mr. Habel: With federal assistance. Mr. Valade: However, when the hon. mem- ber was a member of the Liberal cabinet, I do not think he did anything, since 1911, to urge the province of Quebec to join in a hos- pital insurance plan. Now that this problem is urgent and concerns practically all Canadian taxpayers, our Liberal friends opposite spare no effort in trying to delay the passing of this measure and talk, not in the interest of their taxpayers, but for our friends in the press gallery. Mr. Speaker, this question- Mr. Rouleau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The bon. member who has the floor is imputing to me motives which I did not have, when he says that I spoke first to delay unduly the proceedings of the house and secondly for other reasons he just mentioned. (Text): Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are currently dis- cussing a bill which has nothing to do with federal-provincial relations between the fed- eral government at Ottawa and the province of Quebec. To put the point absolutely in its true perspective, may I say that I believe the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) should adhere in his speech to the matter being discussed which is the bill he has in front of him. I believe also that the same applied to the bon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) who in his speech undoubtedly con- centrated more on federal-provincial relations between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec than he did on the bill. Therefore may I ask hon. members to discuss the bill under debate at present and leave federal-provincial relations in their proper sphere. Mr. Valade: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given this opinion because I am sure if this matter had not been raised before by 1408 JUNE 18, 1958 our Liberal friends we would not have had any discussion of the provincial government. I am going to continue in English, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to be understood very clearly on this question by my friends from the other provinces and those from the prov- ince of Quebec. If I get up to speak on this question it is because I want to say to the minister that I am completely agreeable to a scheme of health insurance in Canada. How- ever, I notice in the bill an implication of the law concerning that part of the bill which states that drugs supplied shall be adminis- tered in the hospital. I know that it never entered the minister's mind to cause the people to have any doubts concerning pharma- cists. As a pharmacist, I should say we enjoy a very good standing in society. As a result of the amendment in this bill, there may be some people who would question the equity of it in relation to pharmacists. We are authorized to distribute prescrip- tion drugs, pharmaceuticals and biologicals. It is for this reason I am speaking on this question. I should like to bring to the atten- tion of the minister the fact that many of the patients who would benefit from this insur- ance plan are people who may sometimes have to leave the hospital for a period of con- valescence or for other reasons. Perhaps these people would need drugs and certain sub- stances in the treatment of their condition. At the moment these persons would have to go back to the hospital in order to obtain these drugs from the hospital itself instead of being able to procure them from the pharmacist. While I agree with the general principle of the bill, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that, in this particular respect, the bill may cause certain disagreements be- tween the pharmaceutical profession and others in connection with the administration of these drugs. It is for this reason I have intervened in the debate, and I hope my ob- servations will be given consideration. Mr. Depu±y Speaker: I must remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will terminate this debate. Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I think that probably the first thing I should say is to thank the bon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for this fine bouquet which he sent across the floor to me a moment ago. Incidentally, I am not too sure whether or Hospital Insurance Act not he expected I would wear it. I do ap- preciate it. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I want to thank the minister for graciously accepting and wearing such a beautifully coloured carnation. Mr. Monteith (Perth): There have been many suggestions made during the course of this debate this afternoon, all of which I am very pleased to hear. Of course, I would point out that I have to disagree with some of the comments that have been made. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) indicated that he hoped there would be more than two provinces that would have signed by July 1. I think it was this mem- ber who indicated that a salesman does not feel he has closed a deal until he has a signature on the dotted line. I quite under- stand that approach. I would assure him, however, as I did earlier that I have every expectation there will be five provinces that will have signed by that date. There were several speakers from the of- ficial opposition who took great pleasure in giving some credit for this legislation to the former government. I have no hesitation in agreeing that it was the former government that brought this legislation into force in April, 1957. I would point out, however, and I have mentioned this previously, that it is my firm belief that if the old government had been returned to power the federal government would not be participating in hospital insurance in any province in Canada until January 1, 1959. Mr. Martin (Essex East): A mere statement is not proof of what is said. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I think I could apply that to a lot of the hon. member's speech. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Al my remarks were statements backed up with authority. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I would be glad to mention the status of the three provinces which the hon. member for Essex East que- ried. As he knows, there have been two agreements signed. In so far as Manitoba is concerned, the agreement is in readiness for signing. It occurs to me that there should be no reason to doubt the intent of the government of Manitoba as a result of Monday's events because it is obvious that when there was a change of government at Ottawa federal moneys were available for hospital insurance in Canada at an earlier date and I think that is an indication of what Hospital Insurance Act might well happen with the government of a similar party. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Is my hon. friend certain that the old government will not con- tinue? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I am certain of that. Mr. Martin (Essex East): The minister had better read tonight's newspaper. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I will be happy to do that if I can get out of here. The Alberta legislation is being studied. As I indicated yesterday, we expect the min- ister and his officials from Alberta to be here tomorrow and the next day in consultation. So far as British Columbia is concerned, that agreement along with Saskatchewan's is before the government for consideration. Agreement in principle has been reached, and I have every reason to expect that those agreements will be signed by July 1. The hon. member for Essex East tried to demonstrate that we were dilatory in for- warding the cause of this particular piece of legislation. Of course, I cannot agree with him. I think the exact words he used were that he did not want the house to consider that this would be fancy. Frankly, it did sound rather fancy to me, because it was quite a hypothetical argument he was build- ing up. I can only repeat what I said before that there are two minor amendments in this bill for clarification purposes, and one pri- marily to get the federal contribution towards hospitalization in Canada under way. I would mention that these are ten dif- ferent schemes, or are very apt to be quite different in some respects. I do not expect that, necessarily, two out of the ten will be identical, if as and when ten are signed. As a consequence, there are bound to be dif- ferences, but whatever differences there are they will be according to the terms of the act. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take my place. If there are any questions later in committee, I would be happy to answer them. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair. On clause 1. Mr. McMillan: I should like to ask the min- ister whether the province of Ontario is tak- ing full advantage of such diagnostic services as are ordinarily given in a hospital. Then [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] under section 1, which deals with subpara- graph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the act having to do with the provision of drugs, I should like to know what is meant there by "when administered in the hospital". If a patient is brought in, for instance, for an X-ray, is he considered to be an in-patient while he is there, just while the X-ray is being taken? Then, in connection with certain diagnostic services, a person may come to the hospital just for X-ray diagnostic serv- ices. Such patients are often given dyes which are ordinarily supplied by the hospital and which must be taken at regular intervals outside. If the hospital supplied those par- ticular dyes for the patient to take, would it be covered under this act? Mr. Monteith (Perth): Mr. Chairman, I feel that there has been somewhat of an attempt to leave the impression that the province of Ontario is not-what should I say-taking sufficient advantage of the terms of the fed- eral act. I should like to repeat again what I have said on one or two occasions earlier in this debate, namely that the agreement with Ontario is fully in agreement with the terms of the act. I cannot go any further than that. As to the X-ray, either an in- patient or an out-patient comes under the terms of the act. I understand a technical term which the hon. member used means tablets, in other words. Am I right? Mr. McMillan: Yes; or dyes. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I understand that these would be given only while the patient is in the hospital. That is one of the clarifica- tions that we have in this bill this afternoon. Mr. McMillan: In other words, these dyes would not be supplied to the patient, to be taken outside in a course of X-ray diagnostic services? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No. Mr. McMillan: Is that right? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No; they would not be supplied. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I think the min- ister does not do himself justice when he says that the province of Ontario, in so far as diagnostic services are concerned, has taken full advantage of the proposal made by the federal government and embodied in the act. He says that what Ontario has done is within the terms of the act just as the agree- ment with Newfoundland is within the terms of the act. Of that fact there is no doubt. But the question is this, and this is not being offered in criticism of the minister. The ques- tion is simply one of clarification. What Ontario does is the responsibility of Ontario HOUSE OF COMMONS1410 JUNE 18, 1958 and the minister cannot be charged with any action taken by any provincial government. However, the question is this. Does Ontario take full advantage of the diagnostic services proposal? I submit that the minister is wrong in saying that it does so. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I did not say that. I said the agreement was completely within the terms of the act. Mr. Martin (Essex Easf): The minister keeps repeating that statement, but that answer does not at all address itself to the question. The fact is that Ontario only accepts diagnostic services for in-patients, in accordance with the terms of the amendment, in a hospital; and with regard to out-patients, it accepts the diagnostic services plan only in so far as emergency cases are concerned. The whole series of diagnostic services that are con- templated in the case of out-patients providing for people who do not go to hospital at all, such as provisions for the use of those modern instruments used by the medical profession to give good diagnosis, are not being accepted by Ontario in so far as this agreement is concerned. Mr. Carter: I have one question on which I should like to get clarification from the minister. It is understood that the agreement with Ontario is in some respects different from the agreement with Newfoundland. What is the position of the person who moves from one province to another? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I am sorry but I was getting some information while the hon. member was speaking, and I did not follow his question. Mr. Carter: I am wondering what is the position of a person who moves, say from Ontario to Newfoundland. In Ontario under the agreement he would be entitled to one set of benefits. In Newfoundland he would be entitled to a different set of benefits. Suppose a person moves frorn Newfoundland to Ontario or vice versa and requires services. What would the position be? Mr. Monteiih (Perth): There will be re- ciprocal arrangements so that no resident of one province, when moving to another, will lose out on any benefits. He will be covered when he moves to another province. Mr. Carter: That does not clarify the question completely. Suppose a person living in Newfoundland is entitled to more benefits than is a person living in Ontario, or to a different set of benefits. Then suppose the person moves from Newfoundland to Ontario. In that case can he get the full benefits that he would get in Newfoundland or is he restricted to the benefits of Ontario? Hospital Insurance Act Mr. Monteith (Perth): I imagine he will be restricted to the benefits of Ontario when he becomes a resident of Ontario. Mr. Carter: I am not speaking of a resident; I am speaking of a visitor. I am speaking in terms of a person who just comes on a short visit and requires these services. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I understand there will be three months' out-of-province benefits in that case. Mr. Carter: But just to what extent? During those three months in Ontario, if he requires services, he cannot get the same benefits he would get if he were in New- foundland. Is that true? Mr. Montei±h (Perth): No. For the first three months he will get the same benefits as he would have received in Newfoundland. Mr. Howard: The minister mentioned the word "resident" which indicates a qualifica- tion as to what is and what is not a resident. I wonder whether he would like to clarify that matter for me. For the purposes of this act, when is a person a resident of a province? Is he a resident after so many months or what is the situation? Mr. Monteith (Perth): As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this may differ in certain provinces. In Ontario, for instance, a resi- dent is a resident of that province imme- diately he comes into it, but there is a three month waiting period in respect to the availability of hospital insurance. Mr. Howard: That is in the Ontario act? Mr. Montei±h (Perth): Yes. Mr. Howard: I would like to take that a step further. As I understand it, the qualify- ing period before a person becomes a resident may vary from one province to another. It may be three months in Ontario or six months in Manitoba, or something of that nature? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No, there will be no difference in establishing residence; there may be a difference in benefits during that first three months period. Mr. Howard: Perhaps I can put the ques- tion in more basic terrns. I am thinking in terms particularly with respect to the plan we have in the province of British Columbia, which requires one year's residence before you can be covered. I should like to know whether it is the hope of this government in dealing with British Columbia that before the agreement is signed that province will reduce the one year qualifying period? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I understand there will be no province which has more than a three months' period and that while the HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act agreement has not yet been signed with Brit- ish Columbia it is actually drawn up and ready to be signed. Mr. Howard: Then, as I understand it, this three month arrangement would be a uniform definition of residence across the country? Mr. Monteiih (Perth): Yes, it is reciprocal and for the purposes of the act and the regulations a resident of a province means a person legally entitled to remain in Canada who makes his home and is ordinarily present in the province. It does not include tourists, transients or visitors to that province. The waiting period, however, will not be more than three months in any province. Mr. Herridge: I would like to pursue that a little further, particularly in view of the fact that this act provides for an agreement between the federal and provincial govern- ments in so far as hospital insurance is concerned. Mr. Martin (Essex East): And diagnostic services. Mr. Herridge: And diagnostic services. One can always rely on the former minister of national health and welfare to put a frame around it, although sometimes it is a bit too wide a frame for me. Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is a very important part of the service. Mr. Herridge: I know it is. I have known of cases where the wives and dependants of service men who have served in Europe for some time, those wives and dependants having been born in British Columbia, upon their return to Canada have been deprived of hospital insurance owing to the present regulations in that province, namely, the one year residence requirement. This has proved to be of great expense to them, and I know of one case where a man incurred on behalf of his family some $1800 in hospital expenses shortly after he returned home. I know of another case where a wife was taken ill and there were expenses of $500 or $600. It seems to me that when these men are en- gaged in the defence of this country and are sent overseas and their wives go with them there should be a federal responsibility. They are defending this country and performing a service for the whole of Canada, and it seems to me that under the new arrangements these wives and dependants who are return- ing from overseas will still be denied the immediate benefits of hospital insurance under this act, which is in effect in the prov- ince to which they will return. I would therefore ask the minister, in view of the fact that the federal government is respon- sible for the welfare of the forces and their [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] dependants and also of veterans, would it not be possible to have some clause written into the agreement between the provinces and the federal government providing for the serviceman's wife and his dependants receiving hospital insurance and diagnostic services immediately on their return to the province from which they left to proceed overseas? Mr. Montei±h (Perih): The hon. member has referred to Briitsh Columbia, where I under- stand there has been a special arrangement in effect during the last two years to assist in taking care of that particular problem. I am given to understand that is the case, but this is essentially a provincial problem. I am concerned about it but actually there would be, as I understand it, a three month waiting period in whatever province is con- cerned. Mr. Herridge: Does the minister think it fair that servicemen who have volunteered to serve their country and who are removed from the country should bo penalized on that account with respect to their wives and de- pendants when they return to their home province, and be denied the benefits of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for a period of three months? I believe that is a penalty resulting from voluntary service to Canada, and I think it is unjust. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I mentioned before that we are concerned with this problem and are continually studying it in an effort to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Bourque: This afternoon when I was speaking, Mr. Chairman, I stated that the province of Ontario was signing for in- patients only with respect to drugs and diag- nostic services, while the province of Newfoundland would extend that service to out-patients. The minister said this was not so. Mr. Monteith (Perth): No, I did not. Mr. Bourque: I may be a little green in this matter and possibly may seem ignorant with respect to it, but I would like the min- ister to tell us just what he had in mind when he said I was incorrect. If the situation is as I outlined, then Ontario citizens will get very much less than the citizens of Newfoundland. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I think this is a similar proposition to the one mentioned a few moments ago. Newfoundland and Ontario have both signed agreements according to the terms of the act. Newfoundland has taken full advantage of all possible diagnostic 1412 JUNE 18. 1958 services. Ontario is having out-patient diag- nostic services on an emiergency situation basis. Mr. McMillan: In reference to the reciprocal agreement which wouhd apphy when a person nioves from one province to another, in re- plying to questions the minister said that if an out-patient under this act moved from Newfoundland to Ontario he would be en- titled to benefits in the saine way as hie would in Newfoundland. How wouhd Ontario be able to provide those benefits when it was not providing themn to the other citizens? Mr. Monteith (Perth): The Ontario people would collect from Newfoundhand for the extra services. Mr. McMillan: Is there an arrangement to that effect between the provinces? Business of the House Mr. Monteilh (Perth): This is a reciprocal agreement. Progress reported. BUSINESS 0F THE HOUSE Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, will the house leader indicate what the business will be for tomorrow? Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shal conclude the debate on the NORAD agree- ment and then continue with consideration in committee of the hospital insurance bill. We shahl then take the estimates of the Depart- ment of Public Works and, after we have concluded them, the estimates of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pur- suant to standing order. 1414 HOUSE 0F COMMONS Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the officiai report of debates pursuant to standing order 39: COASTAL TRADE COMMISSION EXPENDITURES Question No. 45-Mr. Howard: How much money, if any, was spent as a resuit of the royal commission on coasting trade for (a) remuneration to the Individual commissioners; (b) the staff of the royal commission; (c) travelling expenses of the commission, the staff; (d) other expenses not mentioned above? Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees : Mr. Speaker, this motion pro- on behalf of the standing committee on bank- vides foar tbe committee to meet wbile the ing and commerce. There are tbree recomn- house is sitting, and similar motions will mnain rub owr ytecara apply to other committees. We o! the opposi- oftbatin c oit towo! bic whe dsirea tion want ta be as co-operative and as con-ofta mitew fwhhw dsr structive as possible in this matter. We realize ta comment upon. Tbose are the recom- that there is a great deal o! work ta be done mendations that the committee on banking and that there may be occasions, as there and commerce be permitted ta sit while the bave been in the past, wben committees will house is sitting, and that the quorum of the have ta meet wbile the bouse is sitting. But committee be reduced from 15 members ta M0. surely, Mr. Speaker, that need bas nat yet Now, Mr. Speaker, I bave the privilege of been demonstrated, and until tbe occasion bigamme fta omte.Tu arises when the need is obvious we do not bigamme !ta omte.Tu think a motion af tbis kind providing for tbis far tbe committee bas met only once, and procedure should be passed. that one meeting was for the purpose of We are especially worried about this mat- organization, and organization only. Yet out ter, Mr. Speaker, because o! tbe number o! of a strictly organizational meeting o! that 1416 HOUSE OF COMMONS Banking and Commerce Committee important committee on banking and com- merce there comes a recommendation to re- duce the quorum from 15 to 10, as well as the recommendation to meet while the House of Commons is sitting. I know that you, sir, recognize the im- portance that parliament places on the stand- ing committee on banking and commerce. It is of such importance that under standing orders the committee is allowed a member- ship of 50 and the quorum is set at 15. Surely, sir, 15 members out of 50 is a suffi- ciently low number to be in attendance in view of the fact that it has already been intimated that very important legislation is going to be referred to this committee. As a matter of fact, two pieces of legisla- tion have already been referred to it, and the Minister of Finance in his budget presenta- tion on Tuesday night informed the house that some very important legislation, includ- ing in particular the bill on estate taxation, is going to be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Surely a committee of that importance, with that important legis- lation coming before it, should not be per- mitted to function with a quorum as low as 10. It would seem that 15 would be the least membership that we could insist be in attendance while the committee is discussing matters referred to it by the House of Com- mons itself. On this basis I want to oppose the motion now before us. In addition, I have a second reason, and that is the recommendation that the committee meet while the House of Com- mons is sitting. As I said before, I think it is rather peculiar that a committee which so far has only had an organizational meet- ing, before it has even dealt with any business referred to it and has a full under- standing of the problems it is going to have to face, should ask for authority to sit while the bouse is in session. The matter is one of major principle. Every one of us is here only because we were elected by the vote of the people. We are only here because we stood as can- didates to be members of parliament, and when we stood as candidates I take it for granted that we accepted the responsibilities of being members of the House of Commons. Top priority amongst our duties goes to being a member of the House of Commons and being in our places in the house. Of a secondary but important nature is the work of the committees of the house, because they only deal with matters which are referred to thern by the house. I am certain, sir, that all members want to fully accept their responsibilities, both in the house and on committees. However, you [Mr. Winch.] cannot possibly be in both places at the same time. It may come about eventually, by reason of the exigencies of the moment and the pressure of business, that the committee may have to sit while the bouse is in session. Until that time, and the necessity for it is proven, we submit there should not be a request to this house for that power. In particular we would draw to your atten- tion that such a request should not be made so long as two out of the five sitting days each week are not being used by the select standing committees of this bouse. I appreci- ate the fact that two out of the 18 committees are going to make an effort to sit on Mondays. But it bas been the practice, and it still is, that committees of the house do not sit on Mondays and on Fridays, mostly as a favour to what are known publicly as the T. to T. members. Mr. Speaker, the bouse does not meet on Monday morning. Monday morn- ing is just as good a morning for a meeting of a select standing committee as is Tuesday or Thursday. Until such time as select stand- ing committees are taking advantage of the opportunity to meet on Monday and Friday, as they do on Tuesday and Thursday, we say they have no right to ask that the house give power for a select standing com- mittee to meet at the same time as the House of Commons. Mr. Fraser: The house sits on Friday morning. Mr. Winch: That definitely was the view- point taken for as long as I have been here by the bon. members who previously sat on this side of the bouse. I can very well re- member time after time the present Prime Minister standing in his place on this side of the house and expounding, as only he can do so eloquently, to the effect that select standing committees should not meet at the same time as the House of Commons. We are asking that he use his eloquence now to stand by the same principle in government that he stood for when he was in opposition. He was not alone, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add that I have here the statement made by the previous leader of the opposition, Hon. George Drew, as found at page 4343 of Hansard of June 2, 1955. It is as follows: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our wish to facilitate the business of the house in every way this can be done with due regard for the efficient dispatch of public business. I would point out, however, that a number of committees are stili sitting, and that they will be sitting in the mornings next week. If this motion is adopted, it will be a practical impossibility for the members of this house to per- form their duties both in the bouse and on com- mittees in the manner in which public business demands. The same principle was expressed by the Minister of Finance when he also was on this side of the house. As reported at page 5619 of Hansard of July 4, 1955, we flnd this very pertinent statement. I oniy wish he were here to be able to say it himself in the same manner in which he delivered his budget speech the other night. He said this: -and it is siniply impossible to do justice to the business of the house if committees are going ta be sitting at the same time. Need I say any more, MVr. Speaker? Some hon. Members: No. Mr. Winch: The members of the gov- ernment know that ail opposition members of the bouse wiii do everything possible to facilitate the business of the people and the business of government, but until the absolute necessity arises we ask that no motions be accepted in this house caiiing for a committee to meet at tbe same time as this bouse, and that no recommendation be accepted in this bouse ta reduce stili further the very small quorums of the present committees of this house. Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisfer of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, these heartrending appeais are extremeiy touching. As hon. members know, some of us now on the gov- ernment side- Mr. Winch: Did exactly the same thing. Mr. Green: -served in the opposition for many years. In the first place I shouid like to assure my neighbour the hon. memiber for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that we have not changed a bit. We are just as good parliamentarians and democrats now as we were wben we were sitting over on bis side o! the bouse. Mr. Pickersgill: I think we wouid agree with that statement. Mr. Green: There is one great art about being in opposition in respect of which the hon. member for Vancouver East is an expert, and that is the art of whining. An han. Member: What was that? Mr. Green: Whining-w-h-i-n-i-n-g. I know that very weii, because I was pretty good at it myseif. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Green: But these Liberals; they still bave a lot to learn about this art of whining. Mr. Pickersgill: We wiil neyer iearn that. Mr. Green: Oh, you are learning fast. One of the first things you have to iearn is that you must have something to whine about if you are going to do it. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition getting up today with a long face and protesting about this report brought in by the committee. Wbat does the report ask? The first paragraph asks 57071-3-90 Banking and Commerce Committee that the committee be empowered to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto. Second, it asks that it be granted leave to sit while the house is sitting. Mr. Pearson: That 1s the point. Mr. Green: And third, that the quorum of the committee be reduced from 15 to 10 mern- bers and that standing orders 65 (1) (d) be suspended in relation thereto. These are standard reports- Mr. McIlraith: Oh, no, they are not. Mr. Green: -brought in by committees. The hon. member had neyer looked at themn when he was on the government side, so he would know nothing about it. There is noth- ing out of the ordinary in one word of that report; this is the practice which has always been followed. Same hon. Memnbers: No, it is flot. Mr. Green: It has been followed since I came here in 1935, and now hon. members are trying to blow up a great big complaint about the fact that a routine report is being brought before this house for approval. We have assured hon. members on more than one occasion during this session that these com- mittees wouid not be asked to sit whiie the house was sitting unless it was absoluteiy necessary. Not one of them has been asked yet to sit whiie this house has been in ses- sion, but there corne occasions in the later days of every session when it is necessary for a committee to sit. It has neyer been the practice to corne back to the house then and ask for leave to, sit while the house is in session. An hon. Member: It has, over and over again. Mr. Green: We are simply following the ordinary practice; and these compiaints made by the officiai opposition, backed up, of course, by the professionai whiners of the house, which by the way have already been made on more than one occasion, are mereiy a smokescreen designed to try to convince the Canadian people that we are being unf air to parliament. Mr. McIlraith: And s0 you are. Mr. Denis: As far as our publicity is con- cerned, we have no television set instaiied, as has the government. Mr. Green: Oh, you are hardly ever here; I have not seen you here, but the people are in possession of the actual facts which are to exactiy the opposite effect. There has JUNE 19. 1958 1417 HOUSE OF COMMONS Banking and Commerce Committee never been a Canadian government so care- fui of the rights of private members. Here we are giving these committees the oppor- tunity to go into the business that is to come up; estimates being referred to them, com- mittees being given the power to call for witnesses and send for documents, and in many cases the former government abso- lutely refused to have any of these powers given to committees. We have gone to the very limit, taken the maximum step, to help parliament in its own work and to treat the members of the opposition parties with every consideration. They know this deep down in their hearts, but they just like to make a little row in the house, hoping that they will get a little publicity. The Liberals now are weeping and wailing because there are only 47 or 48 of them. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that from 1939 to 1945-at least at the elec- tion of 1939 and the election of 1940-we elected less than 40 members on each occa- sion. We came in with 39 members. In 1945 we elected '67 members; in 1949 we were back to 41 and in 1953 we elected about the same number as the Liberals have at the present time. Now their trouble is this, that we have these four ex-ministers sitting in the front row, these four horsemen of the apocalypse. They have to be on every committee. The Leader of the Opposition has to be on the estimates committee, because I suppose he does not know anything about what has been going on in the house and he is taking this as a means of finding out. But it was on very rare occasions when we were in opposition that the Leader of the Opposition served on any committee at all. Mr. Pickersgill: He may not have attended, but he was on them. Mr. Green: And some of these former min- isters think nobody in the Liberal party but themselves can do anything around here. I hate to give them any advice, because from our point of view they are doing very well right now. I do not know how they could do better as far as we are concerned than the way they have been carrying on so far this session. But I will venture to give them one trade secret of how to function in oppo- sition. If the Leader of the Opposition had a little more confidence in some of his private members, and gave them the responsibility on some of these committees instead of try- ing to run from one to the other himself and do all this work, he would not be getting up in the house complaining about not having time to attend committees. [Mr. Green.] Apart from this, those private members on the Liberal side of the house might come up with some constructive criticism which would be of some help to the country. They have not been spoiled by this power complex which was developed by the ministers in the last government for so long. These younger men, these new minds might, I suggest, bring about a great improvement in the function- ing of the opposition if they were given more responsibility. Now, Mr. Speaker, I come back to my opening remarks. This is a routine report from a standing committee which should be treated in that way, and we are not going to be bluffed by all this phony talk about the rights of parliament being interfered with in any way when we ask that the report of this committee be concurred in by the house. Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil- lingate): Mr. Speaker, as one of those ex- ministers who supposedly has no confidence in the rest of the members of his party, but who happens to be one of the members who attended the only meeting of the banking and commerce committee which has yet been held, I want to make one or two observations which I would not have made if the leader of the house had not made the political speech to which we have just listened. I do not intend to make any such speech; I do not intend to do anything whatever but deal with a few simple facts. The leader of the house said the Leader of the Opposition was rushing about from com- mittee to committee. If the leader of the house was paying attention to his job he would know that the Leader of the Opposition was on only one committee, and it would be pretty difficult to rush from one committee to the same committee. The leader of the house talked about this being a routine motion. If this were a routine motion it would not be necessary at ail be- cause in 1955, when the rules were changed, it would have been put into the standing orders. The plain fact is that it is not a routine motion at ail, and that, until very recent years, it was a rare thing indeed for com- mittees to sit while the house was sitting. I notice that since hon. gentlemen opposite began to occupy the treasury benches they seem to have developed one very serious failing, namely a failing of memory, as the bon. member for Vancouver East pointed out this afternoon. I was very glad that he dem- onstrated that with reference to some of the things they used to say when they were over here. In the committee-and I believe, sir, it is quite proper on a motion for concurrence to JUNE 19. 1958 refer to what was said in the committee-the hon. member for Vancouver East and I both objected to this motion, not on the ground that it might not have to be made some time; and we both gave the assurance that if a dem- onstrated need could be shown we would not oppose the committee meeting while the house was meeting. But we added we did not see the slightest necessity, when there was nothing at all before that committee except two relatively unimportant private bills, and at that time no prospect of anything else, why the government supporters should be rushing in and trying to get this power at this stage. I went so far as to suggest that the conservative position-and I use that word with a smfall "c", of course-that one should not cross bridges until he comes to them should be adopted in this case. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the house who would be so unreasonable as to oppose a motion for the committee to sit while the house was sitting at a time when some urgent business was before that committee. But, in this instance, there is nothing before it at the present time except two small private bills, and there is nothing in prospect except a bill mentioned by the Minister of Finance the other evening, which he has not even introduced. Therefore ob- viously it cannot come before the committee for some considerable time, so there is no question of any smokescreen or anything of that sort. We simply believe that the com- mittee should wait until the time arises when it is necessary to sit while the house is in session. If that time does arise, then we should deal with the question at that time and not now. Furthermore, sir, as the hon. member for Vancouver East did, I raise the point about sitting on Mondays and on Fridays. There is no reason on earth, of course, why the committee should not sit on Monday except that it seems to suit the convenience of a certain number of hon. members to be some- where else than in Ottawa on Monday morn- ings. Indeed, the hon. gentleman who moved this motion himself confessed that it would be inconvenient for him to be here on Monday. In these circumstances, sir, it seems to me that no case whatever has been made out for bringing this motion forward at this time, and I would ask the mover of the motion to let it stand for the time being. Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the bank- ing and commerce committee since 1940, I wish to say that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is entirely wrong; because at every first meeting of the banking and commerce committee back to 1940 we have 57071-3-90J Banking and Commerce Committee always had a motion that the committee sit while the house is sitting. If the Liberals now think that is wrong they certainly were wrong for the 22 years they were in office. It has been suggested that we sit on Friday mornings. On account of the change in the rules a few years ago the house sits on Friday mornings, and it would not be possible or practicable to call a meeting on a Friday morning, because even if it were called at half past nine it would give only a matter of an hour and a half to sit, and when a committee calls witnesses it is unfair to those witnesses to call them in for an hour and a half. Mr. Winch: How about Monday morning? Mr. Fraser: Monday morning would be all right for some committees. I have no objec- tion to Monday mornings, but there are occa- sions when a member has a great deal of correspondence to look after on Monday morning. Mr. Pickersgill: He can do that while the house is sitting. Mr. Fraser: Yes, it is true that some of it can be done while the house is sitting. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate sug- gested that the work be done in our offices, but if the house were sitting an hon. member would not be in the house where he is asking us to be. I know that all members of the House of Commons in general, including the Liberal members, feel that we should sit in the morn- ings and I am agreeable to that, but there are emergencies. That specifically refers to the sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping at which officials of the C.N.R. are called. It would not be fair to those officials to have the committee sit for just half a day. Mr. Pickersgill: It is not a standing com- mittee. Mr. Fraser: That committee sits morning, afternoon and night, and has for years. There are other committees to which we call peo- ple from out of town, from miles away. It would not be fair to them to sit say on Tuesday morning and then not sit again until Thursday morning, because each party has its caucus on Wednesday morning and the committee could not sit. I believe it is only right, Mr. Speaker, that this motion should go through as is. It might not be put into effect, but it should be there for an emergency. Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio): Since my name has been referred to by the opposition I think I should add just a word. To the best of my recollection, comments I have made have been not upon HOUSE OF COMMONS Banking and Commerce Committee this particular point but on the question of referring estimates to committees. I think that is the subject on which I spoke. In any event, what I wish to say is that it seems to me that what the leader of the house has said this -afternoon about this being a well recognized ipractice, followed for many years, is sufficient justification for its being fol- lowed again. Moreover, there has been no answer that I have observed from the op- posite side questioning that statement of the leader of the house. Further, I have no reason to believe, nor has anyone in this house, that this power, if it is given, will be used unfairly or improperly. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker- Mr. Speaker: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for York North speaks now he will close the debate. Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments to make before the debate does close. May I say at the outset that I, as a comparative newcomer here, enjoyed the humour of the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. Certainly we need that sort of levity regularly to ease the tension. The minister, besides being humorous, did give us an insight into why he has been continually successful at the polls during the number of elections in which be has run as a candidate. Obviously the reason is his ability to spread a smokescreen over something and so confuse the issue that peo- ple generally just do not know what they are voting for. But what the house leader has done is to admit in effect that when be and the other members of the cabinet were sitting on this side of the house they were completely in- sincere in raising the objections they did to committees sitting at the same time as the house sat. If the minister does not admit that, then he is admitting that he is insincere at the moment in following the lead of the Liberal party which did substantially the same thing when they were in office. Some- times raising a smokescreen is pretty ef- fective, but no matter how the minister tries to smile or wriggle his way out of the situation be is trapped. He cannot have it both ways at the same time. It is not a matter of whining, as be likes to put it; not a matter of raising objections just for the sake of trying to create the im- pression that the government is doing away with the rights of parliament, but purely and simply a matter of whether this or any other committee should sit while the house is sitting. Finally, may I congratulate the hon. mem- ber for Peterborough for at least speaking to the subject. [Mr. Macdonnell,] Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton Wesi): Mr. Speaker, when dealing with this subject I do think it is somewhat strange to hear from the mouth of the hon. member for Vancou- ver East the words we heard this afternoon. The members of his group complain that they cannot be present in the house and at com- mittees at the same time, but I call to mind last Friday as an example of their assiduous attention to the business of the house. I would draw to the attention of hon. members of that group and others on the left of the Speaker that last Friday was an example. When private bills came up there was only one member of the C.C.F. group in his seat, the bon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Yet most of the private bills have originated with that group. We have an idea where these members were. I may be wrong but my information, and I think it is correct, is that they were out looking at an aircraft. As far as the Liberals are concerned, on Friday and Monday afternoons there are horrible gaps in their ranks, and we know where they are. Mr. Bourget: What about your side? Mr. Howard: Will the bon. member permit a question? Mr. Lambert: People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. Mr. Howard: Would the hon. member per- mit a question before he takes his seat? Mr. Lambert: Certainly. Mr. Howard: I wonder whether the bon. member is aware that what we were attempt- ing to do was to give the bon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) an oppor- tunity to proceed with his bill respecting company directors. Mr. Winch: That is the reason we did not proceed with ours. Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West): Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on record the attendance at the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. Some hon. Members: Order. Mr. Murphy: It so happens- Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the bon. member would be in order in referring to the attendance at a committee whose report is not before the house. An hon. Member: They do not want to hear it. Mr. Speaker: The question is the f ollowing one: Mr. Cathers, seconded by Mr. McBain, moves that the first report of the standing JUNE committee on banking and commerce, presented on June 17, 1958, be now concurred 'n. Those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Borne hon. Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: Those opposed will please say nay. Borne hon. Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the yeas bave it. Mr. Pearson: On division. And more tha& five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Cali in the members. The bouse divided on the motion (Mr. Cathers> whicb was agreed to on theý follow- ing division: YEAS Messrs: Aiken Aiken, Miss Allard Alimarit Anderson Asselin Balcer Baldwin Baslcin Beech Bell (Canleton) Bell (Saint John-Albert) Beizile Bigg Bissonnette Bourbonnais Hourdages Brassard (Chicoutiml) Brooks Broome Browne (Vancouver- Kingsway) Bruchesi Campbell (Lambton-Kent) Campbell (Stormoat) Cardiff Cathers Chambers Charlton Chown Churchill Clancy Coates Comtois Creaghan Crouse Danforth Deschambault Diefenbaker Dinsdale Dorion Doucett Drouin Drysdale Dubois English Fairclough, Mrs. Fairfielfi Fane Fleming (Okanagan- Reveistoke) Flynn Forbes Fraser Frechette Fulton Grafftey Green Grenier Gundlock Hales Halpenny Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) Hanbidge Harkness Henderson Hicks Hodgson Horner (Acadia) Horner (Jasper-Edson) Horner (The Battiefords) Howe Jones Jorgenson Jung Kennedy Kindt Knowles Korchinski Lafreniere Lahaye Lambert LaRue Latour Legere Lennard Letournesu Lockyer Macdonnell MaeEwan MacInnis MacLean (Queens) MacLellan Macquarfle MacRae 19, 1958 Banking and MeBain Mcflonald (Hamilton South) MeFarlane McGee McGrath MeGregor Mclntosh MeLennan McPhillips MeQuillan Maloney Martel Martinesu Martini Matthews Milligan Monteith (Perth) Montgomery More Morissette Morton Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Murphy Nasserden Nesbitt Nielsen Noble Nugent 0'Hurley O'Leary Ormiston Pallett Parizeau Pascoe Paul Pearkes Phillips Argue Badanal Batten Benidickson Boivin Boulanger Bourget Hourque Brassard (Lapointe) Cardin Caron Carter Dents Deschatelets Dumas Dupuis Eudes Fisher Forgie Garland Godin Gour Granger Habel Hardie Herridge Houck 1421 Commerce Committee Pigeon Pratt Pugh Rapp Rea Ricard Richard (Kamourska) Robinson Rogers Rompre Rynard Simpson Small Smith (Calgary South) Smith (Hastings- Frontenac) Smith (Simcoe North) Smith (Winnipeg North) Southam Speakman Stanton Stearns Stefanson Stewart Stinson Tasse Thomas Thompson Tremblay Valade Villeneuve Vivian Walker Weichel White Winkler Woolliams Wratten Yacula-169. NAYS Messrs: Howard Leduc Lessard Macnaughton Mcllraith MeMillan McWilliam Martin (Essex East) Martin (Timmins> Meunier Michaud Mitchell Nixon Pearson Peters Pickersgill Racine Ratelle Regier Richard (St. Maurice- Lafleche) Roberge Robichaud Rouleau Tucker Winch-52. ESTIMATES-cONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT 0F STANDING (JOMMITTEE Mr. A. R. Srniih (Calgary South) moved that the second report ut the standing commnittee on estimates, presented to the bouse on Junç 17, 1958, be now concurred in. NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have the same objection to this motion being proceeded with at this time as we had to the previous one. I will not delay the house by repeating that objection. Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins): Mr. Speaker, I should like to add one further word. We had a similar vote in the committee on miscellaneous private bills. At that time I was pleased to see that members on the gov- ernment side sided in with the same arguments that were used here today, with the result that this particular motion was turned down in committee. I thought it rather strange that the same hon. members who not only voted against a similar motion but spoke very strongly in that regard- Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member, by the rules, is not permitted to reflect upon the vote of any other hon. member. Mr. Martin (Timmins): Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we do not want to delay the business of the house in any way but that we should merely like to re- gister our protest on this particular vote. We certainly will not force a division of the house in that respect. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Mr. Pearson: On division. Mr. Speaker: On division. Motion agreed to on division. PUBLIC SERVICE HALIFAX-REPORTED LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES AT CITADEL HILL On the orders of the day: Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland- Miramichi): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a ques- tion to the Acting Minister of Labour. In view of the unemployment situation in Halifax will the minister arrange to have deferred the lay-off of government employees at Citadel hill, which was to be effective on Saturday next, June 21, following very short notice? Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour): If the hon. member will give me particulars of this matter I will have it in- vestigated. NATIONAL DEFENCE NORAD-APPROvAL OF EXCHANGE OF NOTES BETWEEN CANADA AND U.S. The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen- baker: [Mr. Smith (Calgary South).] That i is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve an exchange of notes constituting an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning the organization and operation of the North American air defence command (NORAD) signed at Washington May 12, 1958, and that this house do approve the same. Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is always very dif- ficult to resume debate after a break such as has taken place in the discussion of the matter now before this bouse. For the pur- poses of the record I would like to refer to the fact that on June 11 last I was dealing with this matter for only a few moments before the house adjourned, and what I intend to do today is simply to review one or two of the reasons for the course of action adopted by this government. Thereafter I will answer certain general questions which have been asked, and finally I will deal with the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the rather tortuous course followed by the opposition from the time this matter first received the attention of this government to date. It will be recalled that during the course of the debate reference was made to the perils faced by the free world and to the position of Canada vis-a-vis that of the United States and that of the U.S.S.R. In addition to the mover, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have spoken on this very important matter, the Minister of National Defence, of course, having addressed his re- marks mainly to defence. The two ministers dealt with the special necessity for the imple- mentation of this arrangement between Can- ada and the United States, and may I say that they reviewed the facts in a manner which clearly indicated their appreciation of the dangers facing our country and of the necessity for this action to be taken. I particularly wish to emphasize, in view of statements made by various hon. members opposite, that NORAD is strictly defensive in nature and in operation. I realized, as I listened to the speeches of hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house, that there exists deep concern with respect to the tensions and the dangers which are even more apparent than at the time of the adjournment one week ago. This is because during the inter- vening period free men everywhere have been shocked to learn of what happened to the former Hungarian prime minister and those associated with him, which events in- dicate that the so-called soft attitude of the U.S.S.R., which seemed to have been apparent during the last two years, has now been sup- planted by a form of Stalinism brought up to date. HOUSE OF COMMONSI422 I am not going to enter into an argument as to whether or not NORAD is part and parcel of NATO, but I would point out that Mr. Spaak, when speaking before the par- liamentary association, did say with reference to this matter that the military plans of NORAD are known to the standing group in the military committee through the Cana- dian-United States regional planning group, and are studied there. This relationship sup- plies a base for co-ordination between the plans set up by the supreme commanders directly under the standing group and the plans of NORAD. He went on to say that it is in this context, therefore, that NORAD's role in the general framework of the over-all defence of the North Atlantic treaty area can be defined. I would furthermore repeat that in so far as NORAD is concerned, it represents the extension of the principles of NATO to the North American continent, in that it makes provision for the joining together of free nations within the concept of NATO and for the purposes of NATO. Without discussing the connection between NORAD and NATO I wish to say that I believe, whether it is a part of NATO or not, it does strengthen NATO, which is all that matters. It is defensive and not offensive. It will give muscles to NATO in North America. Indeed, in view of the recent reports to which I have just alluded, added strength bas been given to the wise words of Sir Winston Churchill, who on December 31 last referred to the Atlantic alliance and suggested its members should give assistance and sympathy to any member state having problems in overseas territories. He said, as reported in the New York Times of January 1, 1958: It is on the unity and strength of the countries of the alliance, and particularly Great Britain and the United States, that the future depends. The North Atlantic treaty should not limit to Europe the scope of mutual assistance and sym- pathy among its members. We cannot have the closest exchanges here, and be indifferent to the Interests of our friends in their overseas problems. I repeat that all the arguments as to the actual legalistic position or otherwise of NATO in its relationship to NORAD in no way answer the problem with which we are faced, namely that with the American in- terest in North America-and by "American" I refer to the United States-with lis large numbers of troops and other armoured person- nel, whether or not they are in fact within the contemplation of the operations of NATO, they comply with the principle dedication of NATO to the preservation of peace. I am going to refer to some of the questions that were raised at the very beginning before I say something on what to me is a very NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement difficult problem, namely the strange and mystifying attitude of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in connection with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition asked on the basis of some report from Washington, which he did not identify, whether or not Air Marshal Slemon ýcould exercise authority over United States forces under NORAD. He wanted to know how much of the time NORAD would be under the command of the Canadian air marshal. This question was answered by the defence news branch of the office of the assistant secretary of defence and public affairs of the United States, Allan A. Howell, when in respect to the question whether Air Marshal Slemon could commit United States forces without consulting the United States government but be unable to commit Canadian forces without consulting the government of Canada, he used these words on January 10: Air Marshal Slemon, in accordance with the agree- ment with the Canadians, is deputy commander in chief of NORAD, and in the absence of the com- mander in chief, exercises all prerogatives of com- mand in the event of war or any ether time. There is no doubt about it. This was the defence news branch in Washington setting forth the position of the United States with regard to this matter. The only veto of any sort is that applied by the United States everywhere in the world, that nuclear weapons shall not be used excepting as authorized by the President of the United States, and that proviso applies everywhere in the free world in consequence of the position of the United States and of legislation in effect in that country. The question was asked, does the agree- ment involve Canada in any action outside North America? The obvious answer to that is no. Another question was, what will be the basis of financing the operations of the in- tegrated headquarters of the command. The answer to that question is that the cost of the pay and allowances of the Canadians at NORAD is met by Canada, and no other costs have been considered to date. Then the hon. member for Essex East asked -barring security-what was the relative strength of American and Canadian forces in the United States serving under General Partridge. An answer to that question had already been given on June 3 in reply to a question by the hon. member for Ottawa West, when it was stated that the strength of the Canadian forces serving at NORAD was eight officers, seven other ranks and two civilians, and in the reply it was also pointed out that the release of strength figures other than Canadian is not the responsibility of the Canadian government. JUNE 19, 1958 1423 HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Among other questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition was this. Did the original decision made last summer to establish NORAD take into account the entirely new strategic situation created by the intercon- tinental ballistic missile. Well, I would hope that the hon, gentleman had the answer to that question. As yet I have not referred to all the items in connection with the memo- randum on steps in the development of in- tegration of operational control. I referred to early discussions in connection with this matter on May 14, 1956, when the Canadian chiefs of staff and the United States joint chiefs of staff agreed to refer to the joint study group the integration of operational control. On February 18, 1957 there was a memorandum prepared to the cabinet defence committee on integration of operational con- trol of Canadian and continental United States air defence forces in peacetime. It is interesting to note that two days after that event of June 10, 1957, the follow- ing appears in the record, and it strikes me as passing strange, although it is not the first time the Leader of the Opposition did not know what was going on at the time Le was secretary of state for external affairs in connection with military matters. He revealed that much in June, 1956, in connec- tion with the shipment of arms to Egypt, but I will not refer to that unless forced to do so. Mr. Pearson: Go ahead. Mr. Diefenbaker: But on June 12, 1957, two days after the election, an aide-memoire was forwarded to the then minister of na- tional defence, Mr. Campney, by the chair- man, chiefs of staff committee, outlining the position on integration of operational con- trol with regard to the air defence of North America. I am not going back to the events when the matter was brought to the attention of the cabinet defence committee by memo- randum on March 11, 1957, but even after the election this matter was raised; and it is passing strange that it did not receive any attention by the then government between those dates, when the aide-memoire provided the information necessary for the cabinet to act. And then, on June 18, this memorandum reveals the degree to which complete con- sideration had been given to this matter by the chiefs of staff and also, I presume, by the minister of defence. The chairman, chiefs of staff, instructed Major General Sparling, Canadian joint staff, Washington, to see Admiral Radford, chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff, and inform him that the Canadian chiefs of staff had placed the question of the integration of operational [Mr. Diefenbaker.] control before the government on Friday, June 14; that the outgoing government re- gretted to state that they did not consider they were any longer in a position to finalize any international agreement, and that there would therefore be some delay in the finaliza- tion of the matter. In others words, consideration had been given to this question as a result of two years' discussion between the chiefs of staff and also with the minister of national de- fence of the previous government, with whose activities one would think the former secre- tary of state for external affairs would have been fully conversant. Only in the last few days evidence was given before one of the committees of parliament-the estimates com- mittee-by one of the officials of the Depart- ment of National Defence to the effect that there was the closest possible relationship in the matter of exchange of information be- tween those two departments. The question was asked, did the original decision made last summer take into consi- deration the strategic situation created by the intercontinental ballistic missile. Those docu- ments show that every consideration was given to all those factors, and I summarize by saying that all factors relating to the strategic situation, including the improve- ment in the manner of delivery of nuclear weapons, was fully considered prior to the establishment of NORAD. Another question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was what functions were being given to NORAD to prevent any mis- take in intelligence or in detection of aircraft, a matter which could be vital. It was vital in 1956; it was vital in 1957, before June 10. Well, such precautions as are necessary are set forth in the rules of engagement and in- cluded in the document entitled "Authority to Intercept and Engage Hostile Aircraft" which I tabled on June 10. Another question was, can the commander of NORAD at his discretion move reinforce- ments across the border to meet operational requirements and, if so, under what condi- tions. Again I was surprised at the question- ing attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. These things had been discussed; these things had been fully covered over a period of almost one and a half years. And yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), with surprise in his eyes, says: "I wonder what was done in connection with this" when, as a matter of fact, he either knows what the minister of national defence in his government was doing or if he does not know it does not show that degree of co-operation which should exist between the Department of 1424 JUNE 19, 1958 National Defence and the Department of Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is just one bit of further evidence of the reason why, in January, 1956, the hon. gentleman did not know that Harvard air- craft were being shipped to Egypt. But we carried the thing on day by day and week by week and found out finally that there was an order in council which was passed on January 10, 1955. He said that it was considered by cabinet; that it was a serious matter and one wherein every consideration should be given to the realization of the danger spot in the Middle East. It was con- sidered by cabinet and the decision was the decision of cabinet. Then, they ended up by saying, well, in the first place there is not an order in council; in the second place it was never considered; and in the third place we did not know anything about it until after the shipment took place. This is just one more example of that failure on the part of the Department of External Affairs to have a knowledge of what the Department of National Defence was con- sidering in connection with a major inter- national matter. I refer to the question of whether the commander of NORAD at his discretion can move reinforcements across the border. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the exchange of notes tabled in the House of Commons on May 19, 1958, which we are now debating, in which it is set forth in full as follows: Temporary reinforcement from one area to another, including the crossing of the international boundary, to meet operational requirements will be within the authority of commanders having oper- ational control. The next question he asked was: Is Canada going to negotiate directly with Wash- ington a bilateral pact for bases of nuclear projectiles. That question bas not been raised or considered. In a very beautiful speech the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) placed his views before the house. He asked two questions in particular in addition to those that have already been answered: Will the United States commander of NORAD have authority to order the R.C.A.F. to shoot down planes which the commander considers hostile, without first clearing his order with the Canadian government? ... bas General Partridge been given authority to shoot first and ask permission later from Washing- ton and Ottawa? If so, where is this shown in the agreement? I have already stated in answer to these two questions by way of anticipation that action against hostile aircraft is covered by the rules of engagement which I tabled earlier in this house. 57071-3-91 NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement I have had the questions gone through most carefully to ascertain what questions have not been answered. These have not been answered and for that reason I have taken the time of the house to answer them. I am now going to refer to what I said in the beginning as to the dangerous and un- certain courses adopted in this matter by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of his party. First, as a member of the government he knew what was going on. Since the minis- ter of national defence who was negotiating throughout was a member of that same gov- ernment, the Leader of the Opposition knew what was going on. If he did not know, there is only one conclusion one can come to. How- ever, the attitude that he has taken on this matter since last September or October is to me out of keeping with what might have been expected. As far as the asking of questions, as far as the most careful analysis of every matter that could possibly be re- vealed, and within the limits of security may be asked, are concerned, in that he discharges the function of a responsible opposition. But, sir, when he produced straw men to knock down, bogeymen to scare and arouse suspicion in the hearts of Canadians, I say that he went farther than that. On reflection, to use those immortal words of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I am sure he will regret it. I think it was Winston Churchill who once said, "I do not resent criticism even when for the sake of emphasis it parts for the time with reality", and I think that pretty well sums up the need of criticism and also the limita- tion. But I say it is an altogether different thing when criticism departs from the facts for obvious political purposes. I intend to deal with the course taken by the Liberal party on this matter. First, in the fall of 1957 the arrangements in general were attacked. The hon. gentleman said that he had no knowledge of the arrangements when, as a matter of fact, if he had not, there was no connection between departrnents, or what- ever information was available he for some reason or other was unable to secure it. Then, the next step was to arouse fears in the hearts of Canadians by playing the tune in every part of this country that we had deserted Canadian rights by sacrifices of Canadian sovereignty and had brought about a state of United States control over Canadian forces. I have a number of speeches that were delivered by the hon. gentleman pointing out the dangers of this. Well, he knew that the position of affairs was no different from having a NATO commander with the power over Canadian troops as to- day the United States commander has power over Canadian and United States troops. HOUSE OF COMMONS NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Then he produced-and I have often won- dered the reason for his doing it-that out- rageous doctrine that Canada should notify the United States that unless their trade arrangements were brought in line with Canada's wishes we could not fully co-operate in defence. Not only fie, but the former associate minister of national defence, Mr. Paul Hellyer, at the Liberal convention at the city of Ottawa said this: I think that when they do come to us and ask for them- And he was talking about defence con- cessions. -we should be very tough with them and say to them: Look at our adverse balance of trade. You help by buying as much from us as we buy from you and we will go along 100 per cent in our mutual defence. That is a strange doctrine, in a world where freedom is challenged, when we are in the position, as an hon. member said, of a Belgium, that we should advance to the United States a doctrine such as that. Is it the voice of responsibility to say that if we in Canada cannot have from the United States what we want in trade-and inciden- tally that tremendous trade in balance exer- cises the minds of my hon. friends opposite today to a degree that it did not when it was being piled up during their days of office-they should say to us that we in Canada should place ourselves in the posi- tion of committing international suicide and not be a partner unless the United States couples its actions respecting defence with those in respect of trade? I say I was amazed to hear the Leader of the Opposition raising a similar argument in this house. What was the next step? First, we did not know anything about it. Second, we should act only under certain circumstances. Then, they said, "Well, you have got the agreement but it has not been sufficiently discussed, although they themselves had their experts and military officials discussing it, as I say, for a period of a year and a half. Then they raised the suspicion that war might start by the mistake of some officer although they themselves had produced the rules of contact in order to prevent that from occurring. Now, as far as discussion is concerned, there must have been full discussion, not for the twenty or thirty minutes referred to by my hon. friends but a discussion over a period of two years. Why did they not go ahead? The Leader of the Opposition said that the reason they did not go ahead was that the election campaign was beginning and ministers had to go back and forth across the country. That is the first I knew that the election campaign began on March 11. The first knowledge that the House of Commons [Mr. Diefenbaker.] had was about April 20 that year and there was never any question during that period of time of ministers going back and forth across the country during an election campaign. But I think my hon. friend rather revealed these facts, these fears and the reasons why action was not taken between March and June when he said, as found at page 1003 of Hansard of June 10: For some reason or other-perhaps to obscure the bilateral character of the agreement; perhaps because they- That is the government. -were a little bit sensitive about the reaction in the country to the placing of part of the R.C.A.F. under a United States commander . . . they went out of their way to emphasize that this headquarters was an integral part of NATO- I can only conclude that these words apply with even redoubled force as the latent reason, the direct reason, why this matter, the general purport of which had to all intents and purposes been determined by the former government, was subject to postpone- ment of finalization until after the election was over. Mr. Pearson: I wish to rise on a point of order. I have already explained to the house, and the Prime Minister will surely accept my word, that far from its being finally con- sidered by the cabinet it had never been considered by any cabinet meeting at any time. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally I must accept my hon. friend's denial in so far as he himself is concerned, which indicates once more that while he did not know other ministers of the then government did. Sorne hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my statement refers specifically to the cabinet. This matter was never discussed at a cabinet meet- ing at any time. The Prime Minister must accept that. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have read the record and I will allow the record to stand. The minutes of the defence committee- Mr. Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister now stating that he has read the record of cabinet meetings of the previous government? Mr. Diefenbaker: Pardon? Mr. Pearson: Is the Prime Minister now stating that he has read the record of cabinet meetings of the previous government? Mr. Diefenbaker: I have stated what I was reading from, namely the memorandum of steps on the part of the defence committee. Let me say to my hon. friend that the first step I took on becoming Prime Minister was to direct, without any other consideration, that at no time should we ever examine any records of the cabinet proceedings of the last government to the end that those proceedings, having been discussed in secret, ought not to be available to a succeeding government regardless of any doubts that might arise. Mr. Pearson: That is the normal practice. Mr. Diefenbaker: I am simply quoting from the defence committee minutes and no one can challenge their correctness. Having first said that they did not know anything about it, having first said that no consideration was given, and there is no doubt whatever that consideration was given for about two years or a year and a half in any event, the next step was to say, "Well, you flouted parlia- ment." My hon. friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, have suddenly developed an interest in parliamentary procedure which was not theirs during a period of 22 years. They have learned that much. They say that we should not have entered into the agreement without prior parliamentary consideration and approval. Did they do that? Does any responsible government do that? I point out first that I can give example after example in this connection since 1945 when agree- ments were first entered into between the executive and the foreign country in ques- tion and thereafter submitted to parliament. I refer to the protocol to NATO on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany. That was in 1955. I refer to the interim agreement regarding international civil avia- tion on December 7, 1944, which was not tabled in the house until September 7, 1945. Then there is the convention on international civil aviation signed by Canada on December 7, 1944, and tabled on September 7, 1945. There is also the international air services transit agreement signed by Canada on February 10, 1945 and tabled on September 7, 1945, with a motion being made for approval later on in the second session of 1945. I mentioned the agreement on civil avia- tion. The motion in that case was simply that it is expedient that the houses of parlia- ment do approve the interim agreement on international civil aviation and that this house do approve the same. First the signature and then after signature presentation to parlia- ment. Indeed, in 1926, as my'hon. friend said, a type of wording of resolutions of approval was adopted, and by a simple read- ing the words of approval indicate that it was the intention of Mr. Mackenzie King, the then prime minister, first to enter into 57071-3-91i NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement agreements and then, having done so, to submit them to parliament. Here are the forms of resolution that answer the specious argument advanced by my hon. friend opposite: That it is expedient that the bouses of parliament do approve- Such and such an agreement. -signed at . . . and that this bouse do approve the same. Alternatively there is this form: That it is expedient that the bouses of parlia- ment do approve ratification of the . . . agreement and that this house do approve the same. That was the next step. Bogeymen and smoke sereens. First, we did not consider the matter. Then there was condemnation by my hon. friend of the terrible danger to the people of Canada. Then there was the fear aroused in the hearts of Canadians that we had sold out Canada. Finally, there was the argument of the hon. member for Essex East who, in stentorian tones, said at page 1028 of Hansard that the question of the potential use of Canadian forces outside of Canada made it necessary to have the agreement submitted to parliament. Apparently he forgot what had taken place during the days when he was in the government, for on September 7 and 8, 1950, when the Canadian Forces Act was being amended, a question was asked regarding this matter of the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). That question is found at page 495 of Hansard of September 8, 1950, and was: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be a resolution authorizing the sending of troops to Korea? This was the answer: No, sir; that would be something which has never been done. The government announces to parlia- ment what its policy is, and asks parliament for the ways and means to carry it out. It Is for that reason that we have our appropriation bill. If parliament does not authorize the ways and means to carry out the policy, it cannot be carried out. If parliament, on the other hand, on any motion of non-confidence, expresses its disapproval of the conduct of the government, of course the govern- ment resigns and some other group forms a government to carry out the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their representatives in parliament. The next question was asked by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) who said: An order in council will be tabled? Mr. St. Laurent replied: "An order in council will be tabled." There is the record, a record of change and alteration, but always raising behind it a dust screen in order to conceal the actual facts from the Canadian people. But it finally remained for the hon. member for Essex East to speak. 1427JUNE 19, 1958 1428 HOUSE OF NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement He really came along at the end. He did not say there was a treaty or an agreement. He said there was no such thing. He said it was not an agreement, it was simply an agreement to agree. I marvel sometimes at the power of his language. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing him in debate when he raises these great issues. His leader said that there was an agreement, but not the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He said it was simply an agreement to agree. Even that was not original. I do not know where my hon. friend got that. Mr. Martin (Essex East): From the same place you get a lot of your speeches. Mr. Diefenbaker: I shall deal with that in just a minute. I marvel at his language. I marvel at his memory. He delivered that speech the other night, to all intents and purposes, without notes. Mr. Deschaiele±s: It was a good one too; much better than yours. Mr. Diefenbaker: I find it was, but I find it was not original. I find that my hon. friend got a Free Press editorial, and without referring to the Free Press used the same words as the Free Press used. No, that is not fair to my hon. friend. With the house in such good humour today, I do not want to be unf air to my hon. friend. It was not the same. He left out one "but". He said this is where I got my speeches, but, Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg Free Press- Mr. Pickersgill: It was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who used to use the Free Press. Mr. Diefenbaker: This suggestion was made to me, and I think in fairness to my hon. friend every opportunity should be given to hon. members to really appreciate the memory of my hon. friend, the genial member for Essex East. I have heard of photographic memories, but I do think it fair my hon. friend should go back to March 20, 1958, to the Winnipeg Free Press editorial, which has as its heading "Agreement to agree". An hon. Member: He has it. Mr. Diefenbaker: This is one time when we are in agreement. But I want to be fair to my hon. friend. At page 1027 of Hansard for June 10, 1958, the first paragraph, he uses these words, and mind you, they are not from the Free Press, they are right out of the mind of the hon. member for Essex East: This agreement is not an elaborate one; in fact, it is not an agreement at all. The material before us does not represent an agreement, it represents- [Mr. Diefenbaker.] COMMONS And so on. The Winnipeg Free Press used identical words, and then a little later on that page- Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would refer your honour to Beauchesne and ask, is it not con- trary to the rules of this bouse to read from an editorial and to attribute to that editorial in the newspaper the very words used? Mr. Harkness: You did it. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I did not mention the newspaper. I would suggest to you, sir, my point of order is well taken. I did the other night exactly what the hon. gentleman did when, without referring to it, he quoted words on one occasion from a secret and confidential government document. Mr. Diefenbaker: Now, that is old straw. We are dealing with something up to date. Who ever heard of such an argument, Mr. Speaker? He quotes Beauchesne to the effect that you should not refer to editorials in the House of Commons. My hon. friend did not ascribe this to the Free Press, he used these as his own words. All the way through the editorial, from paragraph two to the top of paragraph three-I will not quote this but I will allow my hon. friend to check me up -the only change was that where "written agreement" was referred to in the editorial, my hon. friend left that out because he is a lawyer and the editor of the Free Press is not. He put in the word "but" in order to clarify and improve the language and left out "yet". I have no doubt he wishes he had left it all out. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Not at all. Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am merely congratulating my hon. friend upon his ability to memorize. Oh, there was one other change, "U. S.", in the editorial became "United States" in the speech. All the way through, Mr. Speaker, it was the words of Paul and the thinking of Tom, and that is the reason for Beauchesne's rule that editorials should not be used in the House of Commons, much less as though they were the thinking and the words of the individual who uses them. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I have three other good examples of yours I shall use very soon. Mr. Diefenbaker: I have no doubt my hon. friend has other examples, because I have never reviewed these statements before. No doubt there are some that are the same as this. I am simply pointing out that the course was one of change and vacillation, always designed to sow the seeds of distrust and JUNE 19, 1958 suspicion in the hearts of the Canadian people. Then, they end up, and this is what I cannot understand; after they criticized, ridiculed, castigated and condemned, I wonder how they are going to vote? My hon. friend, after ridiculing everything that had been entered into for the defence of Canada, then said that the agreement referred to in the resolu- tion is not objected to by us. Then, why all the criticism? They conceived it in their days in office. Mr. Pearson: That is not true. Mr. Diefenbaker: They conceived it and their protests cannot deny it. The record speaks for itself. Even when the matter came before the cabinet, apparently, on June 14, and these are the words: -the Canadian chiefs of staff had placed the question of integration of operational control before the government on Friday, 14 June;- Mr. Martin (Essex East): I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen- baker) is saying that this matter was decided by the government of Canada. He also said it was a matter that was decided by the defence cabinet committee. As a member of both of those bodies I say, in confirmation of what the former secretary of state for external affairs has said, that is not in accordance with the facts. Under the rules of this house, the hon. gentleman has no alternative but to accept that without any comment. Mr. Diefenbaker: I naturally have to ac- cept the denial of my hon. friend. Then having accepted it, may I read these words: -the government on Friday, 14 June; that the outgoing government regretted- Mr. Martin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker,- Mr. Diefenbaker: Wait until I finish this sentence. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Will my right hon. friend tell us- Mr. Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. I gave place to the hon. member once. I read these words: -that the outgoing government regretted to state that they did not consider they were any longer in a position to finalize international agreements; and that there would be some delay in finalization of this matter. Mr. Pearson: May I ask my hon. friend what he is reading from? Mr. Diefenbaker: I am reading from a copy of the memorandum of the chiefs of staff committee setting out in detail what took place. My hon. friends, having endeavoured to place before the house and the country a transparent plan-should I call it that?- to lead the people to believe that this was NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement something new and that we had brought about conditions detrimental to Canada's sover- eignty, while they spoke they must have had some realization of what the chiefs of staff committee was recording. It is singular, but the last cabinet meeting that I recall was on June 14. I am surprised that since last fall this matter should have been treated in the manner in which it has been treated. Through- out the election campaign it was mentioned frequently. The Canadian people were shown a terrible bogey man. My hon. friends tried to frighten the people with this kind of thing, and the same attitude has been shown in this house. Now, after all the smoke screens that have been raised, I ask my hon. friends opposite to support the motion. They have spoken derisively of this agreement; they have ridiculed it. They have stated that it is not an agreement. It is an agreement. Then the hon. member for Essex East, quoting the Winnipeg Free Press without giving to the editor the honour of the quotation, said it is not an agreement, it is an agreement to agree. Mr. Speaker, it is an agreement to provide for the salvation of the people of North America against a situation that far transcends any other reason or consideration and for the welfare of Canada. Hon. gentle- men opposite having said all 'these things, having determined to make this a political issue by arousing in the hearts of the Cana- dian people that fear that permeates the hearts of people everywhere in the world, I ask them now to rise and, by their vote, to strengthen the alliance which they have ridiculed for six long months. Mr. Speaker: Is the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? The house divided on the motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was agreed to on the following division: YEAS Messrs: Aiken Aitken, Miss Allard Alnark Anderson Asselin Badanai Balcer Baldwin Baskin Batten Beech Bell (Carleton) Bell (Saint John-Albert) Belzile Bigg Bissonnette Boivin Boulanger Bourbonnais Bourdages Bourget Bourque Brassard (Chicoutimi) Brassard (Lapointe) Brooks Broome Browne (St. John's West) Browne (Vancouver- Kingsway) Bruchesi Campbell (Lambton-Kent) Campbell (Stormont) Cardiff Cardin Caron Carter Chambers Charlton Chown Clancy 1430 HOUSE O NORAD-Canada-U.S. Agreement Coates McDonald Comtois (Hamilton South) Creaghan McFarlane Crouse McGee Danforth McGrath Denis McGregor Deschambault Mcllraith Deschatelets Mclntosh Diefenbaker McMiflan Dinsdale McPhillips Dorion MoQuillan Doucett McWilliam Drouin Maloney Drysdale Martel Dubois Martin (Essex East) Dumas Martineau Dupuis Martini English Matthews Eudes Meunier Fairclough, Mrs. Michaud Fane Milligan Fleming (Okanagan- Mitchell Revelstoke) Monteith (Pertb) Flynn Montgomery Forbes More Frechette Morissette Fulton Muir (Cape Breton Garland North and Victoria) Godin Murphy Gour Nasserden Grafftey Nesbitt Granger Nielsen Green Nixon Grenier Noble Gundlock Nugent Habel O'Hurley Hales O'Leary Halpenny Ormiston Hamilton (Notre Dame Pallett de Grace) Parizeau Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) Paul Hamilton (York West) Pearkes Hanbidge Pearson Hardie Phillips Harkness Pickersgill Henderson Pigeon Hicks Pratt Hodgson Pugh Horner (Acadia) Rapp Horner (Jasper-Edson) Rea Houck Ricard Howe Richard (Kamourska) Jones Roberge Jorgenson Robichaud Jung Rogers Kennedy Rompre Kindt Rouleau Knowles Rynard Korchinski Simpson Lafreniere Small Lahaye Smith (Calgary South) Lambert Smith (Hastings- LaRue Frontenac) Latour Smith (Simcoe North) Leduc Smith (Winnipeg North) Lennard Southam Lessard Speakman Letourneau Stanton Lockyer Stearns Macdonnell Stefanson MacEwan Stewart MacInnis Stinson MacLean (Queens) Tasse MacLellan Thomas Macnaughton Thiasher Macquarrie Tremblay MacRae Tucker McBain Valade [Mr. Speaker.S F COMMONS Villeneuve Vivian Walker Weichel White Argue Fisher Herridge Howard Winkler Woolliams Wratten Yacula-200. NAYS Messrs: Martin (Timmins) Peters Regier Winch-8. HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORIZE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTICIPATING PROVINCES, ETC. The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act-Mr. Monteith (Perth)-Mr. Rea in the chair. On clause 1-Commencement of Payments Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I have before me a copy of the agreement with Newfound- land, and clause 12 of schedule B outlines the arrangements in respect of the cost of services provided for insured persons at hos- pitals situated outside the province, and in that clause it is stated that such payments will be made as specified under regulation 12. I wonder if the minister would tell us what regulation 12 is? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I am sorry, but we do not appear to have a copy of the New- foundland regulations here but if the hon. member would agree to state his question I think we might be able to provide an answer. Mr. Carter: Perhaps I can get the informa- tion by putting the question in another form. The minister stated yesterday that if a per- son from one province was treated in another province; to be specific, if a person from Newfoundland received treatment in Ontario, then the government of Ontario would charge the government of Newfoundland for that service. Is there any agreement on the rates of charges for those services? Would the Ontario government charge the rate prevail- ing in Newfoundland, or would they charge their own rate, or is there a mutual agree- ment about those rates? Mr. Monteith (Perth): There would be mutual consent or agreement as to the charges. The Newfoundland rates would un- doubtedly prevail. In other words, they would pay on the basis of the Newfoundland rates. Mr. Carter: The Ontario government would pay Newfoundland at the rate which pre- vailed in Newfoundland? Is that it? Is that what I understood the minister to say? JUNE 19, 1958 Mr. Monteith (Perth): I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the hospital in Ontario would collect directly, not the government of On- tario. The hospital in Ontario would collect either from the government of Newfoundland or from the individual patient who then, on his return ta Newfoundland, would collect from the government of Newfoundland. Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, that seems an extraordinary way of doing it, for a persan ta pay the cost in one province and then be under the necessity of collecting it himself. What would happen if a service were pro- vided in Ontario to a persan from Newfound- land which is not ordinarily provided ta a persan living in Ontario? Who sets the rate? Are they regular hospital rates? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I think I mentioned this last night, Mr. Chairman. He would get the same service ta which he was entitled in Newfoundland. Mr. Carter: But who charges for that and at what rate, the rate prevailing in Ontario? Mr. Monteith (Perth): Yes, so I understand, Mr. Chairman; it is at the Newfoundland rates, what they would pay for the service in their own provinces. Mr. Carter: If a persan were hospitalized in Ontario, then he would not have ta pay Ontario rates if the Ontario rates were higher; he would pay the lower Newfoundland rate ta that Ontario hospital? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No. I understand, Mr. Chairman, there would be circumstances where he might have ta pay extra. It would depend upon the point of view of the province of Newfoundland. In other words, if he were hospitalized in Ontario he might have ta pay same charge over and above what similar hospitalization would cost him in Newfound- land. He would pay ta the hospital in Ontario and he would then claim against the govern- ment of Newfoundland. Whether or not he would collect that extra I cannot say at the moment. Mr. McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister ta say last night that the prov- inces would pay directly from one province ta the other and the individual himself would not have ta pay his bili. Mr. Monteith (Perth): If that is so, I was wrong at that time because the hospital would undoubtedly collect from the individual. I think that is the way it would work out prac- tically and the individual would then collect from his government when he returned. Mr. Mitchell: May I ask the minister a question and probably he realizes why I am Hospital Insurance Act asking it. It seems to me that the ex- planatory notes are slightly ambiguous in connection with in-patients and out-patients. According ta the explanation, no medication is available ta a patient on a take-home basis, but (b) of the explanatory notes reads: To permit necessary accommodation, meals and drugs being provided in the hospital as part of out-patient services- The explanation I would like ta get is whether a patient needs ta be confined ta the hospital ta receive this medication, or whether an out-patient can come back and forth ta the hospital, ta the dispensary or ta wherever it might be where his medication is obtained. I realize that if it is in the form of hypodermic injections it would be handled in the hospital but if the medication is in the form of a daily dose of a certain type of drug could the patient come back ta the hospital every day, or would that be con- sidered in conflict with no medication on a take-home basis? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I understand that this particular type of service would be medical treatment and as such would not come under the hospitalization plan at all. If I understand what the hon. member wishes me ta deal with, it is, can the patient come back ta the hospital on an out-patient diag- nostic basis for one, two or three days in a row? Is that the thought? Well, he can, as I understand it, in Newfoundland but in Ontario it is only on an emergency basis. Mr. Mitchell: That is what I wanted ta clear up. Mr. Bourque: Mr. Chairman, can the min- ister tell the committee the reason why he has not been able ta obtain the signatures of the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Britisb Columbia? I have already asked this question two or three times, and sa far I have not been able ta get a satisfactory answer. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I will try ta run over it all again, Mr. Chairman. I think I have given the answer half a dozen times ta the best of my ability. First of all, let me go back a little farther. Immediately I assumed office last August 22 I did start ta study the Hospital Insurance and Diag- nostic Services Act. The work had been going on in the meantime before I ever took office. My officials had visited in the provinces; there had been provincial offi- cials in Ottawa, and this thing started ta roll. Certainly, as I intimated when we took office, we were going ta -continue ta give it impetus, which we did. As time went on we had a technical con- ference. We had a technical conference last December 13 and 14, or some date in HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act there, at which time all officials of provinces were invited to attend. At that time all provinces did attend except one, namely the province of Alberta. The province of Quebec, I believe, had an observer there. From then on there were several visits to and from the provinces, all toward the development of an agreement and regulations. There was another technical conference held in April of this year at which Alberta officials were present and again Quebec had a couple of officials there as observers. All of the provinces were faced with the problem of making sure that their legislation was in conformity with the act. There is a great deal of work attached to the preparation of one of these agreements and the necessary regulations, and I do happen to know something of that because I know how assiduously my officials and the officials of all the provinces concerned have been working toward the development of these agreements. But certain legislation had to be changed in some of the provinces to conform with our act. The whole program, has been developing. It was obvious last January when I made the announcement of this amendment that July 1 could be the date for some. As a consequence I an- nounced at that time that we would move the starting date forward to July 1. We are working to that end now. Agreements have been drawn up and completed and are before the government for consideration with the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatch- ewan and Manitoba and, as I mentioned yesterday, officials of the province of Alberta are in Ottawa today and tomorrow. I do not think I can say any more. Mr. Denis: With respect to Quebec, can the minister say whether the province of Quebec has said no, yes or maybe? I know that when there was a Liberal government the premier of Quebec said no, but there was an election and the Tory party came into power. We have seen reports in the news- papers that maybe he will enter into an agreement. I saw in the newspapers recently that he was supposed to be preparing some kind of agreement to submit to the federal government. As the legislation before us will come into effect on July 1, does the minister not think that the premier of Quebec is rather late in trying to take advantage of this wonderful legislation? Mr. Mon±eiih (Perth): I do not think it is for me to say what I think. All I can an- nounce is that there has been no indication from the province of Quebec as to what their intentions may be. [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] Mr. Denis: There was no letter, no tele- phone call, no correspondence between the premier of Quebec and the federal gov- ernment? Mr. Montei±h (Perth): No indication. Mr. Denis: Nobody took the chance of writing to him or sending a telegram as was done with regard to the dominion-provincial conference on fiscal matters? Mr. Montei±h (Perth): No. I mentioned earlier that officials from Quebec were at both technical conferences as observers. They are quite well aware of what is available to the province. Mr. Bourget: If my information is correct I do not think that Quebec has drafted legislation so far that would comply with the bill we have before us now. Is the minister aware of that? Mr. Monteith (Perth): We are not aware of whether or not they have been working on any agreement or draft legislation. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I should like to come back to the question put by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean, which is the kind of question we have been asking now for some time. I think the minister has advanced his position somewhat this after- noon but I do not think he has fully satisfied the committee as to the reasons why, with respect to certain provinces, no agreements have yet been signed. He has mentioned the fact that his officials have been very diligent and have worked very hard. Of course I would readily confirm this statement because of my own experience with the officials of the department, all of whom are very outstanding people who give great service to the country. This is the point of the ques- tion of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean. Can the minister tell us why there is no agreement signed today with the pro- vince of Saskatchewan, for instance? Mr. Monteilh (Perth): There has not been time for these things to be developed and completed. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I am going to analyse that. The minister says there has not been time. The province of Saskatchewan has had a hospital insurance scheme in being for longer than any other province in our country. They have the necessary legislation to authorize them to enter into an arrange- ment with the federal government and they have had that authority for several years. That being the case, having a scheme in being, having the necessary authority to sign an agreement, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us now why the province of Saskatchewan has not signed an agreement? Have they not found our terms satisfactory? Have they been negotiating with regard to some of the terms? Surely it should be possible to tell us why a province like Saskatchewan, with all of these necessary conditions fulfilled, has not signed an agreement. The same is true of British Columbia. British Columbia bas had a scheme in being for a long time. It bas the necessary authority to sign. In the case of British Columbia it may be that some necessary amendment was required with regard to out-patients, I believe it was, but my recollection is that British Columbia passed that amendment last fall. If that is the case, why has no agreement been signed between January 1 and the present time? I have made the statement, and I am not saying this in an acrimonious way, that from the progress that bas been made I am satisfied it should have been possible to have agreements with those provinces that have hospital insurance at least by the end of last September. What the committee is trying to ascertain from the minister in a friendly way, not with a view to making it difficult for him because we all realize how heavy his responsibility is, is the reasons why. Is it that some of the percentages of grant have altered because of the rise in costs? I have been looking over Hansard for yesterday and I find that some 59 questions were put that have not yet been referred to by the minister. Mr. Monteith (Perth): So many of them were repetitious. Mr. Martin (Essex East): My hon. friend says "repetitious". They are repetitious be- cause we are seeking to impress upon the minister the questions that we have in mind. Look at the number of questions the bon. member for Burin-Burgeo put to the minister. True, he repeated questions but that was because the minister first of all did not seem to appreciate their nature and, second, when he gave an answer it did not seem to be satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I am going to deal later with one particular question because I do not think the minister's reply can be correct. If it is correct, then there certainly has to be some change made at once because the people of Newfoundland will be given the impression that they are getting from the federal government something they are not getting. I do not think that can be the situation. However, the simple question before the committee now is why no agreement has been signed with Saskatchewan. The min- ister should tell us. Is it because Saskatch- ewan does not want to take the responsibility for Indians? Is that the reason? If not, what is the reason? Hospital Insurance Act Mr. Mon±eith (Perth): I mentioned a moment ago that the agreement is complete and now before the government for consideration. Con- sequently, there is no reason. The agreement bas been decided upon between the province and the government. Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is not the question. Why was this not done months ago? I said that Saskatchewan bas a scheme in being. Mr. Monteith (Perth): It is not starting until July 1. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I know, but if my hon. friend had got an agreement with Saskatchewan eight months ago, if he had got an agreement with the province of British Columbia eight months ago he could have come to the house and asked for the authority that he is asking for today. Mr. Monteith (Perth): We are getting back to the old question. It would not have been done until the first of January 1959 if you had been in power. Mr. Martin (Essex East): If my hon. friend wants to get this measure through he must do two things. He must first of all listen to the questions and then patiently try to deal with us curious members who have the obli- gation of asking him why more progress has not been made in this matter. I do not say by him but by the government of which he is such a distinguished member. Mr. Monteith (Perth): What is the imme- diate question? Mr. Small: If I may answer the hon. mem- ber for Essex East, the reason it is not signed is the same reason that he could not get it signed. The province would not sign it. Mr. Martin (Essex East): My hon. and genial friend obviously does not know what he is talking about when he makes that observation. Would the minister answer the question? Mr. Monteith (Perth): What is it? Mr. Martin (Essex East): The minister said there is an agreement now before the federal government for signature. My question and that of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean is why that agreement was not before the government many months ago. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I tried to explain a few moments ago the amount of work in- volved in developing these agreements. Ail of this takes time on the part of provincial government officials and federal government officials. It happens that at this exact time the agreement has been developed to the 1433JUNE 19, 1958e Hospital Insurance Act point where it is ready for signing. I can- not answer in any other way. Mr. Bourque: I have no doubt the officials of his department are trying to do a good job, and are doing a good job. I should like to know, has the minister been in com- munication with the premiers of the prov- inces himself? Mr. Monteith (Perth): In several instances, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bourque: But not in Quebec. Yesterday, the minister told us Ontario had signed an agreement which included diagnostic services for in-patients and for out-patients it was confined to accident cases. He also told us previously that the agreement signed with Newfoundland included diagnostic services for both out-patients and in-patients. My question is, can any province sign an agree- ment and include only the services it wants, that is for partial services or for full services? Mr. Monteith (Perth): So far as out-patient services go, they have diagnostic services. They have that part. Mr. Bourque: If this is so, has the minister given any consideration to the amount of bookkeeping this is going to require, or the staff he will need, if each province is going to have a different system? Mr. Mon±ei±h (Perth): There will not be any difference at all. The hospital charges are paid by the province to the hospital, and then we, in turn, make a monthly pay- ment to the province covering our share of the hospitalization charge in that partic- ular province. At the end of the year when we have all our costs assimilated, we will work out the exact position and make an adjustment. Mr. Martin (Essex East): The minister said monthly, and I think it is quarterly. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I cannot swear to that; monthly or quarterly. Mr. Hardie: Can the minister tell the committee- Mr. Monteith (Perth): May I correct that impression? I understand it is actually an advance payment monthly. Mr. Hardie: My question is this. Has the minister submitted to either the territorial council of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories an agreement for signature? Mr. Monteith (Perih): I understand that the subject has been before the commissioner and the council and the staff of the depart- ment, and is being studied. [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] Mr. Hardie: Can the minister tell me whether the agreement submitted to the com- missioner is the same type of agreement as that submitted to the provinces? Mr. Monteith (Perth): No, there has not been an agreement submitted. It is rather a matter of working out some scheme which will be suitable for the territories. Mr. Hardie: Is it the intention of the gov- ernment to submit to these people plans along the same lines, say with the same percentage, 50 per cent, to the territorial governments? Mr. Monteith (Perth): This will all have to be worked out. After these discussions which are taking place, are complete and a report is received, undoubtedly there will be some sort of agreement with the territories drawn up. At the moment, I cannot say what the percentage would be. Possibly I might point out to the hon. member that at the moment, as the bon. member for Essex East has pointed out, the percentage which is being borne by the federal payment does vary as between the provinces. In Newfoundland, actually it is going to be 68.3 per cent. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Those are the figures for which I asked. Mr. Montei±h (Perth): It is 68.3 per cent. Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is four per cent less than the original estimate. Mr. Monteith (Perth): These figures are for January 1 to March 31, 1959. A monthly pay- ment will be made for operating costs based on 68.6 per cent-I said 68.3 per cent-for Newfoundland; Nova Scotia, 57 per cent; New Brunswick, 57.9 per cent;- Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is two per cent less. Mr. Monteith (Perth): -Ontario, 48.8 per cent; Manitoba, 47.4 per cent;- Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is a reduction of four per cent. Mr. Monteith (Perth): -Saskatchewan, 42.2 per cent; Alberta, 48.8 per cent; British Columbia, 50.2 per cent. Mr. Martin (Essex East): What would the Quebec percentage be under the new estimate of costs? Mr. Monteith (Perth): I have not got a figure for Quebec. Mr. Martin (Essex East): It was 53 per cent before. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I have not any figure for Quebec. These figures are apt to vary, as we have mentioned before. The basis on which we participate in the shareable costs is 1434 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 19. 1958 25 per cent of the per capita costs in the province, plus 25 per cent of the per capita cost across the country. Naturally, this is going to adjust the figures in the provinces from time to time, and the figures I gave represent estimates from the figures available. Mr. Hardie: My point is, if this formula of 25 per cent of the provincial costs, plus 25 per cent of the national costs, is applied in particular to the Northwest Territories we will find a great difference. For instance, in the Northwest Territories today one-third of the population would be considered the re- sponsibility of the provincial government, and the other two-thirds of the population is made up of Indians and Eskimos who come under the jurisdiction of the federal gov- ernment. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I quite appreciate that. As a consequence there would have to be some special arrangement worked out. Mr. Hardie: Can the minister tell me whether this report which is to be presented will be presented to the territorial council at its July session so that the territories can come into this scheme on January 1, 1959? Mr. Monteith (Perth): It will be a report to me, but I am not sure whether it will be ready for the July session of the council. Then the government will have to decide what steps are to be taken. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Can the minister tell us what the situation is now with regard to the share of the federal government and the provincial government with respect to moneys paid by a patient who comes under a hospital insurance scheme with regard to semi-private or private rooms? I think the old formula was 60-40. Has there been any progress made in the negotiations on that point? Mr. Monteiih (Perth): It is at present 50-50. Mr. Martin (Essex East): What is the objection that is taken now by the law officers of the crown to the hospital insurance scheme in Alberta, which makes it difficult to give it ready acceptance? Mr. Monteith (Perth): It would be rather out of place for me to comment on that at the moment because negotiations are now taking place. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I do not think it is a question of negotiations. Mr. Monteith (Perth): It is not a question of negotiations, it is a matter of coming to an agreement. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Then there is no difficulty, so far as the federal government Hospital Insurance Act is concerned in accepting as such, the hospital insurance scheme in Alberta? Mr. Monteilh (Perth): I made this state- ment earlier also, and this is probably one of the 60-odd questions to which the hon. member referred. I did say that the question at issue was as to whether or not the Alberta legislation fitted in with our act, and that bas been before the law officers of the justice department for .consideration. While these discussions are going on, I do not think I care to make any further comment on the matter. Mr. Martin (Essex East): My hon. friend will realize that this is the parliament of the nation, and parliament has the supreme right to be told exactly what the policy of the government is towards this scheme in Alberta. Mr. Small: As the Liberals told us when they were in power. Mr. Monteith (Perth): There is no doubt about the policy. It is simply to reach an agreement. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I did not catch the interjection of my hon. and genial friend. Mr. Small: I say it was the same sort of thing that happened when you were in power. When we asked you a question we could not get an answer to it. As a matter of fact, they were questions of the same class. You said it was government policy and you would not answer. Mr. Martin (Essex East): That is right. Now that we have disposed of this interjection, perhaps I might elicit certain information from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I can understand how the minister could say "Well, the scheme in Alberta is not the kind of scheme to which parliament has authorized the payment of public money". Mr. Monteith (Perth): I did not say it was not; I said we were studying it. Mr. Green: The hon. member for Essex East is having a bad day. Mr. Martin (Essex East): My ho.n. friend says that he is studying it. We are going to be here for a long time until we know pre- cisely what it means. We are now giving the minister power to pay out money. I can- not understand why there should be any difficulty about the Alberta scheme if other modified schemes are being accepted. For instance, as to the scheme in Manitoba, is it a full hospital insurance plan? Does it cover every individual in the province? Is it confined to certain cases under certain contingencies? If that is the case, how does Hospital Insurance Act it differ in principle from the kind of objec- tion that my hon. friend would raise as against the province of Alberta? Mr. Monteith (Perth): There is nothing irregular about the agreement with the prov- ince of Manitoba. There are absolutely no special concessions or anything of that nature whatsoever. It is fully within the terms of the act. Mr. Martin (Essex East): My hon. friend keeps saying that it is within the terms of the act. I am glad to know that. Then why is the Alberta scheme not acceptable? The Alberta scheme is a scheme that provides for insurance for limited numbers of people. It is based on financial contributions made by the provincial government and the munic- ipalities. But those are the only particulars I know of in which it diff ers from any of the others. That is why I want the minister to give us some explanation. Mr. Monieiih (Perth): I cannot go any fur- ther than I have gone, Mr. Chairman. I have tried to explain that there is a difference in the Alberta act and legislation. We have studied the matter and we have been study- ing it for some weeks. There bas been dis- cussion back and forth between officials of the province of Alberta and ourselves. We have been trying to determine whether or not we can accept it. We hope and we rather expect to find that the Alberta legislation is satisfactory. Certainly our main policy is to sign an agreement at the earliest oppor- tunity. Mr. Bourque: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I cannot really understand this amendment. We read in clause 1: 1. (1) Subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is repealed and the following sub- stituted therefor: "(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital," (2) Paragraph (i) of section 2 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) to out-patients as specified in an agreement; and" Then in the explanatory notes on the opposite page we find this: (2) Section 2 (i). This amendment removes the existing exceptions concerning accommodation, meals and drugs. The present paragraph (i) reads as follows: "(i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except sub- paragraphs (i) and (iv) thereof, to out-patients as specified in an agreement; and" If this amendment means what it says, I cannot see how the government can make an agreement with any province for out- patients. [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] Mr. Monteith (Perth): I will try to explain this matter. It does take a little homework. I think I spent an hour or two on it myself before I had it entirely straight, not being a lawyer. Section 2 (f) of the act states as follows: (f) "in-patient services" means all of the follow- ing services to in-patients, namely- (iv) drugs, biologicais and related preparations as provided in an agreement, Then subsection (i) of the act reads as follows: (i) "out-patient services" means al or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except sub- paragraphs (i) and (iv) thereof,- Subparagraph (i) of paragraph (f) reads as follows: () accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level, In other words, out-patient services mean all or any of the services set out in para- graph (iv) except; so as a consequence, by a strict interpretation, it has been argued- and I agree with the hon. member for Essex East; I am not too sure that this maybe is not all right but it is for purpose of clarifica- tion-that out-patient services are defined to cover all these in-patient services except those set out in paragraph (f) (i) and (iv), which would mean that out-patients could not get accommodation and meals or drugs, biologicals and so on as set out in (i) and (iv). Does that explain it? Mr. Bourque: Yes, to a certain extent. But it is going to be an extremely complicated affair to interpret. Mr. Monteith (Perth): No. I think it is rather simplifying it. The amendment states now: 1. (1) Subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is repealed and the following sub- stituted therefor: "(iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital," This first part simply means that when drugs, biologicals and related preparations are as provided in an agreement which is under paragraph (f) of section 2, then they must be forthcoming in the hospital and must be treated in the hospital. Paragraph 2 states: (2) Paragraph (i) of section 2 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor: Instead of: (i) "out-patient services" means all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f), except sub- paragraphs (i) and (iv) thereof,- It reads at the moment that all these in- patient services except accommodation and meals at the standard or public ward level 1436 HOUSE OF COMMONS JUNE 19, 1958 and except drugs, biological and related preparations as provided in an agreement- except those-would be included in out- patient services. That is being repealed and there is being substituted the following: (0) "out-patient services" means ail or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) to out- patients as specified in an agreement; and" So it will simply include (i) and (iv) as amended. In other words, all of these in- patient services will now be available on an out-patient services basis. Mr. Hardie: Since the minister stated that discussions were going on between officials of his department and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the commissioner of the Northwest Terri- tories, I wonder whether he and his officials would consider this suggestion? Because of the special provisions that will be required to give to the people of the Northwest Ter- ritories and the Yukon Territory the same benefits as those which will be derived by the people in the provinces, may I ask that special consideration be given to the problem of transportation. In the Northwest Terri- tories, for instance, we have hospitals at Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Yellowknife, Fort Simpson and Aklavik. A person breaking a leg or faced with some sickness that cannot be dealt with in a nursing station or by the R.C.M.P. is required to travel to the nearest hospital. This problem is a very serious one, especially when we are considering hos- pitalization for the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I would hope, therefore, that the minister and his officials will consider including transportation costs in the special provisions which he has men- tioned would have to be made for the people of these areas. Mr. Monteith (Perth): These things will be considered, and when I receive the report I will be very happy to look into the matter. Mr. Winch: Now that the minister is in this mood for considering all these things, I wonder whether he would tell us whether considera- tion will be given to an arrangement between the federal and provincial governments for the care of those who need hospitalization but who are not eligible owing to the lack of one year's residence in particular provinces. I have in mind those people who would normally be the responsibility of the federal government, namely the thousands of women and children who are the families of those men in the armed forces who have taken their discharge on returning to Canada. Such peo- ple have lost their right to hospitalization and in fact the men themselves, upon taking their discharge, are not eligible unless they have resided for the preceding twelve months in Hospital Insurance Act the province concerned. Numerous cases have been drawn to my attention where they have incurred very heavy hospital bills during such a twelve-month period, and where no one can be held responsible for their welfare. I do think some provision should be made in that case. Mr. Monteith (Perth): I am very happy to inform the hon. member that no province has a greater waiting period than three months under this new scheme. Mr. Winch: That is under the new plan but it is still twelve months in British Columbia, or it was. Mr. Monteith (Perth): It was at one time, but I understand an arrangement was made with the Department of National Defence. I may be mistaken. Mr. Winch: No, I am referring to those who have taken their discharge from the armed services. The arrangement to which the min- ister refers applies to those who are still in the armed services. Mr. Monteith (Perth): In any event there is no longer waiting period than three months in any province. Mr. Bourque: The answer the minister gave me a moment ago would have been satis- factory and I thought it was at the time he gave it, but I have now read the explanatory notes. The purposes of this bill are set out as follows: (a) to specify that the drugs, biologicals and related preparations which may be provided as part of in-patient services may not be given to patients on a take-home basis; It therefore becomes very complicated for the out-patient, and I understand it is a matter of discretion which might give rise to diffi- culties when trying to make arrangements. Mr. Monteith (Perth): The hon. member will notice in section 1 (1) of the bill, item (iv) of paragraph (f) is being changed to indicate that these preparations as provided in the agreement are to be administered in the hospital. The explanation in the explanatory notes under (a) includes the words, "may not be given to patients on a take-home basis", and the addition under (iv) includes the words, "when administered in the hospital". The limitation is therefore included to provide for administration in the hospital only. Mr. Bourque: I think it is important that this should be interpreted for the bouse, because out-patients are not provided for in this amendment. The amendment refers only to patients in the hospital. Mr. Monteith (Perth): If the bon. member would refer to subsection 2 of section 1 of the HOUSE OF COMMONS Hospital Insurance Act bill, I think this matter might be clarified for him. Subparagraph (iv) of the first section provides: (iv) drugs, biologicals and related preparations as provided in an agreement when administered in the hospital, In-patient services are set out in the act itself but subparagraph (iv) to which I have just referred changes the wording to say these preparations must be administered in the hospital, so that covers in-patient services. Section 2(i) of the act defines out-patient services as meaning all or any of the services set out in paragraph (f) and, as I pointed out, paragraph (f) defines in-patient services. In other words, all in-patient services are in- cluded except sections () and (iv), and the amendment deletes (i) and (iv). In future therefore out-patient services will include all of those in-patient services under (f) ex- cepting that drugs and biologicals must be administered in the hospital. Incidentally, out-patient services are as set out in the agreement, and that is why some may differ. Mr. Batten: It may be quite feasible that under the present formula of 25-25 there will be fluctuations in the percentage of cost paid to any province. This is evidenced by the fact that the percentage paid to Newfound- land, which would have been 72, but is now 68.6. Having decided what the percentage is to be for any one province, for how long will that percentage obtain? Mr. Monteith (Perth): Just for one year. The figures are adjusted when the actual costs are presented. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Bill reported. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea): Shall this bill be read a third time now? Mr. Martin (Essex East): Oh no. I think we have been very generous with the minis- ter. No doubt he will wish to look at some of the questions he has not answered, and I think we ought to defer third reading. SUPPLY The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 341. Improvements generally-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $700,000. Mr. Bourget: I think the minister was about to give us a breakdown of this amount of $700,000. [Mr. Monteith (Perth).] Mr. Green: When this estimate was under consideration the other day I read off some examples of the expenditures covered by the item. Today I have a much longer list. I would be very glad to let the hon. member see it at any time. As a matter of fact, even this list is not a full list because some of the items go down as low as $100. Mr. Bourget: I do not ask the minister to read all the projects but if he would be good enough to give us the breakdown by provinces. Mr. Green: I have not got it now, but I will get that information. The hon. member will notice that in the details of the estimate it is divided between expenditures in Ottawa and expenditures elsewhere; $150,000 for Ottawa and $550,000 for other centres. Item agreed to. 342. Maintenance and operation of public build- ings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $44,000,000. Mr. Fisher: I should like to bring up at this time a point I did not have the oppor- tunity of raising on a previous item in the estimates. I refer to the operation of the central heating plant and its relationship to the question of public buildings. I understand that two years ago an extension was made to this heating plant and that two more boilers were put in, and yet anyone who visits the plant at the present time will discover there are quite a number of boilers not in use. The question that comes to mind immediately is why more boilers are needed; how many boilers were operated last year of the boilers in service; how many boilers have they alto- gether; and how many will they have altogether. Mr. Green: The position is that there are three boilers known as the Leonard which are modern boilers, thoroughly efficient and two of a smaller type known as Kidwell boilers and four old Babcock boilers which are used as standby boilers. I am wrong. The Kidwell boilers are the standby boilers. The four Babcock boilers are obsolete. They are very small and make a lot of black smoke. We are going to buy one new Leonard boiler. Mr. Pickersgill: The minister's reference to black smoke leads me to inquire whether the Department of Public Works maintains that smoke-belching equipment behind the national research council and to express the hope that the Prime Minister will not have to drive through the smoke very much longer. Mr. Green: Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been driven through it too. Mr. Pickersgill: I have been driving there, too, yes. Mr. Green: Apparently this is the first complaint we have had about this smoke. We should be very glad to look into it. Mr. Pickersgill: As the minister knows, I walk along there every morning and I have more opportunity to see this smoke than the people who are whisked by in motor cars. Mr. Green: I would not like the hon. member to get more smoked up than he is. Mr. Fisher: How many of the boilers operated last winter. Did any of the standby boilers that are not efficient operate last winter? Mr. Green: The four Babcock boilers were only operated in times of emergency. Mr. Fisher: Are we to assume that be- cause these boilers are inefficient they must be taking up space? Are the new boilers to have new housing, or are the Babcock boilers being removed to put these in? Mr. Green: No, the building is large enough now to accommodate all the boilers we have at the present time and two in addition. Mr. Fisher: The two in addition are the ones that were inefficient. Mr. Green: No, there is :room for two new ones. Mr. Fisher: Are we going to carry on with the inefficient boilers or are they going to be scrapped? Mr. Green: As soon as we have acquired a new Leonard boiler the four old Babcock boilers will be taken out. Mr. Fisher: What is the situation with re- gard to the staff looking after these boilers? Are a certain number of people working on each boiler permanently, or are people added to the staff as more boilers are brought into use? Mr. Green: No. The Babcock boilers are only put into use when some of the other boilers are out of use. Mr. Fisher: I should like to make a final suggestion to the minister. I have heard com- plaints and very serious criticism in connec- tion with the whole operation of this plant and these are the sort of things which, as referred to earlier, put the whole civil service and especially the Department of Public Works in a bad light. These criticisms are circulating, and though I am not suggesting Supply-Pubcli Works that they are in every way well founded they have been made to me by people in Ottawa who seem to know a certain amount about the situation, and they suggest that this is a very bad example of government inefficiency. Will the minister check into the situation personally to see whether there is anything to this? Mr. Green: We shall be very glad to have a look at it. Sometimes we do get those com- plaints from people who may have been told by someone else, or they may have a spite against somebody working in the plant. I doubt whether the information given to the hon. member is accurate. We shall be glad to look into it. Mr. Bourget: Mr. Chairman, before you cali it six o'clock I ask the permission of the committee to ask the minister for informa- tion which should have been asked for on item 328. Will the minister be kind enough to give me the number of new engineers and new architects who have been employed by the department since July 1 of last year and where they are located, either in Ottawa or in district offices. Mr. Green: I will be very glad to get that during the dinner recess. Item agreed to. At six o'clock the committee took recess. AFTER RECESS The committee resumed at eight o'clock. 343. Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $1,818,650. The Chairman: Shall the resolution carry? Mr. Bourget: No. I thought the minister was going to answer the question I asked at six o'clock. Mr. Green: I have not yet got the figures for engineers and architects who have been employed but I do have a breakdown of vote 341 having to do with improvements gen- erally. The figures are: Ottawa, $150,000; outside Ottawa: Newfoundland, $36,450; Nova Scotia, $15,000; New Brunswick, $7,400; Prince Edward Island $2,375; Quebec, $300,045; Ontario, $107,580; Manitoba, $10,400; Saskatchewan, $35,510; Alberta, $10,500; British Columbia, $24,740, a total of $550,000 outside Ottawa and an over-all total of $700,000. Mr. Bourget: Under item 343 I should like to ask the minister if any new centres for the supply of furnishings or materials needed for the different public buildings have been established. I recall that in the past there JUNE 19, 1958 1439 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works were centres established at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. Have any new centres been established? Mr. Green: No, there has been no increase in the number of purchasing agencies. Mr. Bourget: Was I correct in saying that there are supply centres or warehouses at Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg? Are there other centres I have forgotten, such as pos- sibly Vancouver? Mr. Green: In addition to the ones the hon. member has mentioned there is a small purchasing office in Vancouver. Mr. Bourget: Centres have not been estab- lished in Quebec ýcity, Windsor or Hamilton, for example? Mr. Green: Purchases in the Quebec area are handled from the Montreal office. The Toronto office handles western Ontario. Mr. Bourget: There are some cities where the department buys locally from local sup- pliers such things as soap and so on needed in public buildings. Mr. Green: There would be some small items but practically everything is bought under the tender system and in the form of bulk purchases. Mr. Pickersgill: Does that mean that when the customs building is completed in St. John's, for example, the furnishings for it will be bought in Montreal? Mr. Green: The tender call will come from Montreal but, mind you, it will be advertised in Newfoundland. Mr. Pickersgill: I would hope so. Mr. Green: So would I. Mr. Bourget: Is it the intention of the department to establish a centre of distribu- tion in Newfoundland, for instance? I think it would be a good idea in order to help the local suppliers. Mr. Green: In due course we hope to be able to make this extension. Eventually there will probably be about six centres in Canada. Mr. Bourget: Taking Newfoundland, for instance, if a warehouse were established in Newfoundland would tenders for supplies then be called for only within the province or outside the province? Mr. Green: No, they would probably be called over a larger area. Mr. Bourget: From the manufacturers. Mr. Green: Yes. Item agreed to. [Mr. Bourget.] Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and im- provements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be assistants, was so limited that the department expended on individual listed projects- 345. Newfoundland, $3,640,000. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations to make on this item. The other day when I spoke on item No. 1 of the min- ister's estimates I had just started to say something about the great value of small public works that require very little planning and very little advance organization. It so happens that all around the coast of New- foundland and particularly in my riding there are many such works that are still very badly needed. It is true that in the nine years since con- federation the most urgent works have been done. But there was, as the minister knows, a long period before that when, first because of economic difficulties and then because of the war, marine works such as wharves, break-waters, slipways and other services, which under confederation the federal gov- ernment has the responsibility for supplying, were seriously neglected, and I think I will offend nobody by saying that. The result is that, despite the magnificent and untiring efforts of the minister's department over the last nine years, there is still a great deal of this work to be done, as the minister is well aware. As I said the other day, part of the reason that more has not been done in the last few years is that the availability of super- visory personnel, engineers and engineers' assistants, was so limited that the department simply could not redouble its efforts. But, at a time like this when, according to the latest figures we have been given, 24 per cent of the working force of Newfound- land is unemployed, surely something extra could be done. Those are figures which the bureau of statistics gives us, so no hon. members should suggest I am exaggerating. We are hoping that when the figures come out for May they will not be quite so bad. The improvement, as I know from having been there only last week, is not anything like as encouraging as we would like it to be. Anything the minister can do to speed things up this year, or toward planning for next year, would be very welcome indeed. I have told the minister twice, and I do not think it will do me any harm to say a third time, that I welcome his suggestion he is going to build a real shelf. I have a few items that I should like him to put on the shelf. I believe the simplest way would be to start systematically at one end of my JUNE 19, 1958 riding and go through it very quickly. It will be an interesting tour, and it would make me happy if the minister would come along and make the tour with me. An hon. Member: On your boat? Mr. Pickersgill: I do not know whether or not that would be the minister's idea of a holiday, but I am quite sure if he did it he would be completely convinced. Mr. Green: Would there be a real sailor on board to look after the ship? Mr. Pickersgill: Yes, and I can assure the minister there w'ould not only be a good sailor on board but a good cook as well. The minister looks as though the ministra- tions of a good cook would not do him any harm. Mr. Green: I have gained 20 pounds since I got over here. Mr. Pickersgill: I can assure the minister that his experience is not the experience we had when we were over there. We worked so hard we lost weight. Mr. Green: You lost more than weight. Mr. Pickersgill: Happily at any rate, in my case I did not lose a very important part of my anatomy, my seat. Being here as a representative of the con- stituency of Bonavista-Twillingate I feel that my constituents would expect me to indicate some of the more urgent of these marine works that the minister could undertake. We would all be grateful if he were able to un- dertake them, if not this year, then next year, and in some cases it might take a little longer than that. I am going to start at Twillingate, which is one of the largest and also one of the most historic fishing settlements in Canada. there are 35 families. At Bluff Head cove, Twillingate in addition to the main harbour. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, a considerable dredging operation has been un- der way, perhaps I should say was under way for a while but was suspended because of what was felt to be a more urgent need at Port-aux-Basques. I have no complaint about that. However, I do hope, at the earliest possible date, the minister will find it pos- sible to have the main dredging operation at Twillingate resumed. In addition to that there is the need for a breakwater at Jenkins' cove to protect the fishermen's boats. I may say there are about 75 fishing families involved there. A similar breakwater is needed at Ragged point, where there are 35 families. At Bluff Head cove, there are about 35 fishermen, most of them heads of families. In addition to that, the Supply-Public Works minister's department did an excellent job last year with a bulldozer dredging one of the coves in Twillingate. This was a rela- tively small job, but the appreciation of those fishermen would touch the minister's heart deeply if he had a chance of meeting them. There are several other coves, Jenkins' cove, Durrell Bottom Maidment and Hillier's Bottom, and Shoal Tickle, where only a little dredging with a bulldozer would improve the situation immensely. Then, moving from Twillingate island to New World island, it is true that the main settlements at New World island have excellent wharves, but there are a number of smaller places where wharves are needed. Bridgeport, Tizzard's Harbour, Hillgrade and Carter's Cove, are places that just come to my mind quickly on thinking it over. In addition to that, there is a small dredg- ing operation which I would hope the minis- ter might find it possible to get done at Whales Gulch. I am very glad to see that it is proposed to go on this year and finish the Pikes Arm canal, because it is going to be of immense advantage to the fishermen in that area. I may say that, when I was there on other business in March, I saw the new wharf at Birchy bay, and the lobster fisher- men especially are tremendously pleased with that wharf. However, like Oliver Twist, they would like a little more. They would like another block on the wharf so that they would be able to reach deeper water. Then, Boyd's cove is an important place. It is a jumping- off place for the islands and it very badly needs a wharf. If this would touch the minis- ter's heart any more, I would say that Boyd's cove was one of the few places where I did not get a majority, so perhaps the minister would undertake to build a wharf there right away. Mr. Green: What did the hon. member say they needed there? Mr. Pickersgill: A wharf; this would be a relatively expensive wharf, but it is very badly needed. Then, a smaller wharf is needed at Port Albert. Port Albert is at the end of the line of the road being built, and when the road is built a good part of the traffic to Change islands and to Fogo island will come up the road from Lewisporte to Port Albert and by boat across to these islands. In addi- tion to providing for the needs of the fisher- men, such a wharf would provide for the needs of the traffic both of persons and of freight. Then, going into Gander bay, there is a perennial problem of getting a coastal wharf at Gander Bay. The minister's officials will tell him what a vexing problem this is, and HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works if the minister can solve it we will all be very grateful. There are, in addition, two or three places in Gander bay, the Gander Bay settlement itself, Main Point and Davidsville, where landing wharves would be of immense help to the people. Then, there is a wharf at Frederickton, which is well known to the minister's officials. This is the Frederickton in Newfoundland, of course. At Frederickton, the view in the community is that a small block at the end of the wharf is what is needed. I do not presume to offer a professional opinion on that, but there is an improvement needed at Frederickton. Then, at Carmanville there is one of the greatest antiquities in Newfoundland and one of the longest wharves. I do hope the minister's department will get around to replacing it before it collapses en- tirely. Carmanville is a big and growing settlement and this is a great need of the people. Then, going back to Change islands, there is a long standing need for a wharf. This is an important fishing settlement as well as an important place of transit. In the greater part of Fogo island wharves have been built re- cently. At Seldom Come By, the minister's department bas done a wonderful job, and at Fogo itself there is a relatively new wharf. At Joe Batt's Arm there is a new wharf, but they would like an improvement to the wharf. At Tilting a small wharf would be very helpful. But the place I should like to appeal for most of all is a place sometimes called Deep Bay and sometimes called Hare Bay- that is near Fogo-where the people have no place to land at all. It is a very hard place. It is a place where one could not build a very large structure. But there are a good many fishermen there and they encounter great difficulty. At times it is impossible for them to launch their boats and get them into the water. Then going back to the straight shore, I understand the minister is planning to go ahead this year with the breakwater at Aspen Cove and I hope with some dredging as well at Ladle Cove. There is a need for a slipway for the fishermen at Ragged harbour. There is a petition that I believe the minister re- ceived-I know the Minister of Fisheries did -for a breakwater at Flin Point at Musgrave harbour. One of the leading merchants of Musgrave harbour is a very well known and celebrated person in Newfoundland named Mr. James Way who on one occasion con- tested an election in Newfoundland for the minister's party against the premier of New- foundland. Mr. Way has said he would build a fish plant if the minister would build this breakwater. I commend this project to the minister's sympathetic consideration. [Mr. Pickersgil.] Then there is a certain amount of dredging needed at Deadman's Bay. I am pleased to say that the minister is going to build a wharf this year at Lumsden North. At Lums- den South what is needed is a breakwater. Lumsden is one of the greatest fishing settle- ments in the world and it has some of the finest fishermen in the world but it is a terribly open place. If this breakwater could be constructed, it would be a tremendous boom to these fine God-fearing people. Then we come to Cape Freels. Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South): May I ask the hon. member a question? Mr. Pickersgill: Certainly. Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South): What did the Liberal party do when they were in power? Mr. Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Hamilton South would like me to give a list of the things the Liberal party did while in power I am afraid the minister's estimates would not get through tonight. It would take too long. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Pickersgill: I was just indicating the supplementary things that still needed to be done notwithstanding what had been done. At Cape Freels North there is a splendid wharf. As a matter of fact, I carved my initials in it on one occasion just so the people would not forget. However, they need a small slipway, it would not cost very much. Here again is a great fishing settlement. Then at Newtown the minister is doing some dredging this year which is badly needed, for which the people are extremely grateful indeed. At Pound Cove a wharf would be of great help to the settlement. I am afraid there is nothing I can ask the minister to do in Wesleyville that he has not already done. In the main the same thing applies to Valleyfield-Badger's Quay. The minister is building a big shed on the wharf at Valleyfield. That is badly needed. It will be of great assistance and I am very grate- ful to him for it. Then we come to Greenspond. As the min- ister knows, Greenspond is an island. In Greenspond there are people who would like a causeway built to the mainland. I am not going to make any such extravagant request of the minister this evening. However, there are a certain number of rocks in the chan- nel into Greenspond that for some reason or another we cannot seem to get removed. I think there is the best will in the world but somehow or other the rocks keep on being there. If they could be removed this year, it would be deeply appreciated. Then in addition, the people of Greenspond West feel the need of a wharf in that part of the island. I think that request will be familiar to the minister's engineers as well. Then at Fair Islands last year a splendid wharf was built. A slipway is needed. I would not put this in the deep urgency class but it is some- thing that would be very much desired. A wharf is urgently needed at Silver Fox Island. Then moving along the coast we come to Hare bay. The minister and I have had a certain amount of correspondence about Hare bay and I have the feeling that he is grad- ually being softened up about Hare bay. It is a big settlement, an important settlement and a growing settlement. Although it is not generally regarded as a fishing settlement, the decline in the woods operations in the last year or two bas made many people anxious to go back fishing if facilities are available. Therefore, on those two counts this would be a good project for the minister to undertake. Then I come to St. Brend-ans. St. Brendans again is an island. I regret to say that for some reason or another the people of St. Brendans do not seem able to give me a majority. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Pickersgill: Notwithstanding that fact, they are very fine people. One recognizes the fact that there have to be some Con- servatives in the world. An hon. Member: You don't have to worry about them. Mr. Pickersgill: These people have a wharf that is not adequate to this important settle- ment. There is one of the other coves in which they would also like a wharf. If the minister could do something to improve the wharf facilities at St. Brendans, that also would be greatly appreciated. Then we come to Gambo. I might say that Gambo is the birthplace of the premier of Newfoundland. It is celebrated in a good many other ways as well. It is the railhead of the whole of the north side of Bonavista bay. There is tremendous traffic in and out of Gambo. There is a good deal of local feeling that the wharf that is now there is not really adequate. An hon. Member: Why didn't you build it when you were in power? Mr. Pickersgill: Because we were building other wharves that were even more urgently needed, and in very great number. Then I come to Glovertown. In Glover- town there is a spendid wharf where the Millie Ford is tied up from time to time. Supply-Public Works Glovertown is a big settlement. It stretches all the way around Alexander bay. It is a large place, larger than most settlements in Newfoundland. The people on the north side of Glovertown also feel the need of a wharf. Then there is a certain need for repairs to the wharf at Traytown. I do not think that anything is needed at St. Chads. There is a fine new wharf there. But at Burnside they do need a breakwater. This is a relatively small structure and it would also be very helpful to the fishermen in that rather exposed place. Then, of course, there is Salvage. Salvage is a great historic fishing settlement, one of the most picturesque places in Canada. It is a place which people would travel thousands of miles to see if it were a little bctter advertised. It is also a splendid fishing centre, but it is also in need of a wharf. I think the minister has some of the partic- ulars. There is one wharf there but, because of the configuration of the place, there is need of another wharf. Then I understand some repairs are badly needed to the wharf at Sandy Cove. Also a small wharf would be of tremendous help to the fishermen in Upper Happy Adventure. A small slipway would also be of great help in Powell's cove in Happy Adventure. It is all the more important in Happy Adventure because, as the minister well knows, many of the people in Happy Adventure in the past have made their living at working in the national park. Until the park gets thoroughly organized, facilities for the fisheries would be especially helpful. Then there are two places, one at the edge of the national park and the other across Clode Sound, called Charlottetown and Bunyan's cove. I am going to tell the minister a secret. I got a lift across the sound the other day on one of the minister's boats. I do not know whether the minister knew he had a fleet down there. However, they were kind enough to run me across the sound. I hope he will not discipline them for doing so. I may say it was not done in working hours. I can assure him of that. In both these places it is apparent that they need small wharves. A wharf would be greatly appreciated also at Port Blandford and would be all the more necessary, I should think, on account of the increased trafflc that there will be because of the establish- ment of the national park, I would not pretend that Port Blandford is ever likely to be a fishing centre, but it is a big place and it is going to be a big tourist centre, and I would have thought that this would be a suitable project. JUNE 19, 1958 1443 Supply-Public Works Some hon. Members: How big? Mr. Pickersgill: Well, it is big enough that I would hope the minister, in his spare time, would build a post office there, too. A couple of years ago we built a wharf; I beg the minister's pardon, his department built the wharf at Canning's Cove, and this wharf has been a tremendous boon, not only to the people of Canning's Cove but also to the people of Musgravetown and the people of Bloomfield. Musgravetown and Bloomfield are farm settlements. In fact, they are two of the largest farming settlements in my district which, perhaps, is not the leading agricultural constituency in Canada. These people, how- ever, produce a large quantity of potatoes and other vegetables which they sell all along the northeast coast. At the present time they have to truck these vegetables over some very high hills and steep grades for quite a considerable distance to the wharf at Can- ning's Cove. In the old days there was a public wharf at Musgravetown. Of course one wharf would serve that place and also Bloomfield; I would not ask the minister for two. An hon. Member: How about a subway? Mr. Pickersgill: This wharf would more than justify itself. A small wharf was built on the other side of the bay at Portland last year and it is surprising to note how much use has been made of it. It has stimulated the fisheries in an area which has not been a fishing area. When the minister can get around to it, a wharf would be very helpful at Winterbrook, which is a large centre for the fishing and collection of lobsters. A wharf is very badly needed, indeed, at Southern Bay and also at Charleston. Though these places are fairly close together one wharf would not do for both of them, because there bas been a good deal of development in recent years in this whole area with the pothead whale fishery and the squid and herring fisheries. These marine works there would really enor- mously assist the people to exploit these riches of the sea. Wharves are needed at Princeton and at Summerville. A wharf was built at Plate Cove West only last year, and there is a wharf at Openhall but the people feel it would be much more useful to them if they could have another block on it. The people of Tickle Cove would like a wharf. I admit that this is a difficult proposition because Tickle Cove presents many problems. It is right on the Atlantic and it will tax the ingenuity of the minister's engineers to produce the kind of structure which will stay there. I am pleased the minister is undertaking to replace the wharf at Duntara which was [Mr. Pickersgill.] regrettably destroyed by a storm about a year ago, and by so doing he bas given heart to the fishermen. I believe Knight's Cove is another place where if a wharf were built there could be considerable development of the fishery, and Upper Amherst Cove is a great fishing settlement. It would be of great assistance to the people there if a wharf could be built to assist in the prosecution of the fishery, making it not only easier but more profitable, and it would. enable them to carry on their activities for a longer period each year. At Newman's Cove I know there are again great engineering difficulties but assistance is also required. In this latter place there is exposure to the Atlantic, but extensions to the present wharf are needed. At the other side of the cove a slipway is badly needed, which I am very hopeful the minister will be able to look after this year. At Birchy cove there is a smaller settlement but everyone who lives there is a fisherman and it would be very helpful if there could be a small slipway and a block built on which to tie the boats. I am very grateful for what the minister is going to do this year in Bonavista and the people of Bonavista are also very grateful. The completion of the dredging of the pond and the work on the public wharf will be of great help and I hope it can be commenced at an early date. There is, however, one other project at Bonavista which has been under discussion for quite a long time. It is not a big job, but it is something which is clearly a federal responsibility and I hope it might be possible for the minister to con- sider taking steps in this regard this year, because it certainly is not one of those big works which would have to appear separately in the estimates. I refer to the fixing up of O'Dea's Pond. If my time had not just about expired and if the minister's patience was not wearing a little thin, I could go on to mention a lot of smaller works. I think perhaps I have suggested enough to keep the minister's department busy for the rest of this year and to indicate to him a few of the more important projects which people in Bonavista-Twillingate are very hopeful it will be possible to carry out next year. Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the other members of the house, I think I should point out that the practice of my department is to construct projects in inverse ratio to the time taken up by members representing the various constituencies. Mr. Granger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this subject, firstly to thank the Minister of Public Works for what his department has done and is planning to HOUSE OF COMMONS1444 JUNE 19, 1958 do in my district. I have in mind particu- larly the wharves at Tarrington Haven for Happy Valley and Conche. I would also like to make mention of the high calibre of the officials of his department. I would, in fact, like to pay tribute to all civil service officials in their sincere and patriotic endeavours. The nation, indeed, owes a debt of gratitude to these faithful persons who devote their lives to the public service. I would now like to mention a number of urgently needed public works for my own riding; firstly, a wharf and shed are needed at Botwood and at Lewisporte. These ports are busy shipping points and such accommo- dation is vital to their economic health. An extension is also needed to the wharf at Nain, and a fishermen's wharf is required at North West River slipway and a winch at Pinware. Wharves, at Hopedale, Pacquet, Fleur de Lys and Seal Cove need to be lengthened. The canal at Pilley's Island needs to be deepened and consideration should be given to dredg- ing Jim's Cove. At this latter point a wharf is needed or, in the alternative, at Card's Harbour. Wharves are needed at Embree, Hampden, Baie-Verte, Budden's Tickle in Sop's Arm and extensions are needed at Burlington and Wild Bight. A shed is needed on the wharf at Raleigh. Shove Tickle in Little Bay islands needs dredging and the breakwater should be raised. In many cases the wharves are more than mere facilities for the handling of freight. They are vital so far as fisheries are con- cerned and the loss of a landing wharf can mean the ruination of the fisheries for a whole community. Conversely, the provision of such a wharf can mean a real increase in the quantity of fish caught. Viewed from any angle wharves are of the utmost importance to a riding such as my own, where the sea provides both the means of livelihood and the means of transportation. Mr. Carter: Hon. members may not realize it, but in a modest way I am a shipowner, too, although not quite one of the same magnitude as my colleague from Bonavista- Twillingate. Nevertheless I can invite the minister to make a tour of my riding, and I can assure him that the cooking will com- pare with any he could get on any other ship in Canada, because the cook is my own wife. So I invite the minister to come down and travel with me any time he wishes, and I am sure he will find a lot of appreciative people in my riding of Burin-Burgeo, particularly the fishermen, who will give evidence of their gratitude for the work that has already been done. Supply-Public Works There are 260 settlements in my riding. I think the minister has made a sufficiently long tour for one night, so I will not take him over the whole length and breadth of my riding at this time, but I can assure him when I was elected in 1949 and travelled my riding for the first time I compiled a whole shelf full of works to be undertaken, so there is no shortage of requests for public works as far as the minister's department is concerned. In fact I am sure that the district office could provide a whole long list of works which could be put on his shelf, and I think that some have already been on the shelf for a considerable time now. I wish to make a plea for several settle- ments in my riding where the people have been obliged to return to the fisheries but cannot carry on the fishery successfully because the harbours have deteriorated to such an extent that they cannot keep their boats in shelter at all. Perhaps hon. members do not realize just how hard a fisherman has to work. In my own birthplace-a little fishing settlement which is typical of others all around the coast-the fishermen get up well before daylight, sometimes around two or three in the morning, get their gear ready and set sail for the fishing grounds. It may take about an hour or two to reach them before daylight. They return at about six o'clock, get a bite to eat, and then have to cut the fish, an operation which takes them until eight o'clock at night. Then, probably, they have to get into their boats and travel ten or 12 miles to get bait for the next day. They return at ten o'clock, or later, and are able to sleep for three hours, or four at the most, before beginning the next day's work. That is one of the reasons why our people grow old before their time and, of course, it is impossible to keep this up indefinitely. The Chairman: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but we are at present discussing the items of the public works estimates. I would ask the hon. member to adhere to the question under debate. Mr. Carter: I was only illustrating the need for these minor works which have been referred to by my hon. friend from Bonavista- Twillingate. They may seem trivial to some hon. members, but they are of the utmost importance to fishermen for the reasons I have outlined. I have in mind, particularly, a place called Seal Cove where there are about 500 people all of whom now are dependent upon the fisheries because those who were formerly engaged in the woods operations can no longer find employment there. This is one place where they cannot do anything this year unless something is done to deepen the water in the harbour. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works Around the Lamaline area there are a number of fishing settlements with about 1,000 fishermen. There are scarcely any harbours around that coast and a real need exists for dredging, building breakwaters and erecting other installations to make it possible for these people to carry on the fishery without unnecessary hardship. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the need for sheds at Grand Bank and Fortune. During the election campaign the Minister of Transport announced that these two sheds would be built, but I see that no appropriation has been made for this purpose in this year's estimates. I assure the minister that these sheds are very ur- gently needed and I hope that the completion of these structures will not be too long delayed. Before I sit down I should like to say one or two words about St. John's Harbour. I referred to this on the first estimate, but only in a general way. The minister is in possession of a plan which has been prepared by an engineering company and I suppose all plans are based on facts, forecasts and as- sumptions. The facts would result from surveys which would reveal the actual ton- nage of shipping using the harbour, the ac- tual volume of freight handled and the movement of freight between various points; the forecast would be an interpretation of those facts in so far as they might indicate the growth of shipping in the future, in- creases of freight handled and changes in the movement of traffic; and the assump- tions would be with respect to future ship- ping trends. The assumptions also would relate to what shipping firms would be carry- ing on business in the harbour and also as to what effect certain harbour installations might have on the ebb and flow of the tide and the undertow in the harbour itself. In all these factors there is room for a certain margin of error; there is room for error in interpretation of the facts and there is certainly room for a large margin for error in the area of forecasts and assumptions. This was our sad experience at Port aux Basques, though I do not think the Depart- ment of Public Works should shoulder all the blame for what happened there. The primary error there was the construction of a ship far too large for the harbour, and the second error was the selection of a site for the terminal which was located in the only place where it should never have been put. If that was done on the advice of engineers, I think we have the right and the duty to question plans that engineers may bring for- ward because they certainly are not infal- lible. [Mr. Carter.] The shipping trend in the future must of necessity be in the direction of larger ships because smaller ships cannot operate econom- ically in the light of present day operating costs. As I understand it, the present plan has certain defects in that it provides for the dockage of the larger ships in the narrowest part of the harbour. If the pattern in the future is to get away from small ships and have larger and larger ships in that harbour, then we cannot accommodate all the ships in that place where the one large dock is to be located. The other defect in the plan is that it reduces the area of the harbour available for anchorage, and this is a serious defect as far as St. John's is concerned, because St. John's is the one harbour where the banking fleet will rush for shelter whenever a hurricane occurs and in the past several years we have had several experiences of that kind when the harbour filled overnight with ships, all sorts of shipping including the banking fleet and coastal ships which had rushed there for shelter. Any plan which would diminish the water surface of the harbour available for that would, in my opinion, be a serious disadvantage. In addition, the other defect as far as the present plan is concerned is that it reduces considerably the amount of linear footage available for the docking of ships. I do not think that criticism is intended in any way to condemn the present plan, but it indicates that other possibilities should be very care- fully looked into before any firm decision is arrived at. The present plan seems to me to have developed either because the com- pany had in mind a fixed expenditure and tried to keep the plan within the limits of that expenditure, or else its survey did not envisage any great future expansion of com- merce for the harbour. I do not think any of us can foretell what is going to happen in the next 50 or 100 years, and it would be most unfortunate if we did anything at this time which does not have to be done, and which might turn out in the future not to be for the best. I do not know what defects the alternate plan has, but I understand it to be much more comprehensive and a much more expen- sive plan. Furthermore it corrects some of the defects that I have already mentioned. I would certainly urge the minister to give it very careful consideration and if it means expending $20 million or $50 million, not to let the amount of expenditure stand in the way of doing the very best possible job. Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the time of the committee for a few minutes to point out to the minister some of the discrepancies in the remarks of my colleague from Newfoundland, the hon. mem- ber for Burin-Burgeo. He concluded his remarks by saying that the narrow portion of the harbour-I presume he meant the west end of the harbour-would be narrowed down considerably by the construction of a large pier. Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything of the sort; I am sorry. Mr. McGrath: Perhaps my hon. friend would clarify it. Mr. Carter: I said the present plan makes provision for the docking of ships in the narrowest part of the harbour, in the western part of the harbour. Mr. McGrath: The point that I would like to clarify for the benefit of the minister and the departmental officials particularly is the fact that deep sea shipping, that is shipping of fairly heavy tonnage, have always in previous years-and there is no reason why they will not do it in future years-used the eastern end of the harbour. I am sure the hon. member will also agree with me when I maintain that there is no reason to believe that, with the construction of this large jetty in the western end of the harbour and the breastwork which will form the basis of the northern side of the harbour of St. John's, there will be anything to stop heavy ships, if any heavy shipping comes to St. John's in the near future, from using the eastern end of the harbour and which now uses the premises of Furness- Withy and Harvey and Company. By the same token, it has been pointed out by engineers of the Foundation Company of Canada, and various other experts, that the jetty is being built in the western end of the harbour to facilitate the handling of ships up to 10,000 tons. I am sure the hon. member is fully conversant with the facts, and I am sure he is fully aware that since the end of world war II there has been little or no shipping in the harbour of St. John's over 10,000 tons. I am sure the same critics of this plan that the hon. member has quoted and he are aware of the fact the suggestion has been made that this development will make St. John's a sixth rate harbour. I would like to point out that right now we are not even a tenth rate harbour. What I maintain is that when the present plan is implemented it will not be the answer to all of our problems but it will be an improvement and it will, I hope, be the beginning of many more im- provements to the harbour of St. John's. I certainly would like to see this plan started as soon as possible. Supply-Public Works Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for St. John's East has just said I pointed out at the beginning, namely that this survey was based on some facts, fore- casts and assumptions. One of the assump- tions is that the shipping firms now operating in the eastern part of the harbour will always be operating there. I think that is not a valid assumption. More than that, the very fact which he mentioned, namely in the western end of the harbour there is to be accommoda- tion for 10,000-ton ships, is going to tend to put those shipping firms in the eastern part of the harbour out of business altogether. If it is possible to expand this plan to utilize the eastern part of the harbour, as we are doing now for the western part, then St. John's will not have to be a sixth rate har- bour; it will be a first rate harbour. Mr. Tucker: Mr. Chairman, it would be very unkind of me if I were to say that the people of my riding are not grateful for the work that the Department of Public Works has in hand this year, but I must say that we are not satisfied and we hope that the doors are not closed. We hope that many im- provements which could be done at very little cost will be taken in hand. Also, there are many projects ·which I sincerely hope will receive sympathetic consideration in the not too distant future. At this time I want to publicly thank the Minister of Public Works for the prompt replies that I receive to re- quests made to him on behalf of the settle- ments in Trinity-Conception. In my riding the Department of Public Works proposes to spend $110,000 this year on new construction work in the settlements of Elliston, Little Catalina and Old Shop. But there are many more communities need- ing facilities to assist fishermen in the carry- ing on of their work at the fisheries. I should also like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the urgent need of an extension to the wharf at South Dildo, near the premises of the Arctic Fish- eries Products Limited, and where the pro- vincial government owns a co-operative plant and O'Brien Fisheries carry on a fisheries business. Here is a very important industry which creates considerable employment for the residents in that area. As a matter of fact, when there is a good flshery there are as many pounds of sea products put through these plants as in many large fishing plants in other parts of the island. I have presented to the Minister of Public Works several petitions from settlements ir my riding. However, in addition I have a few more. For instance at Hibbs Cove, Port de Grave, a breakwater is badly needed. The fishermen there have to travel as much as 50 miles per day to get to the fishing grounds JUNE 19, 1958 1447 Supply-Public Works Hibbs Cove is one of the biggest fishing settlements in Newfoundland. There are also many places where wharves should be constructed such as Green's Harbour, Hillview, Lady Cove, Little Heart's Ease, Long Beach, Queen's Cove, Sunnyside, Thornba, Western Bay, Melrose and Trinity East. Trinity East is a growing settlement because many families are moving there from remote areas. Slipways are required at Blackhead, Lead Cove, Gull Island and Clarenville. Extensions to public wharves are required at Caplin Cove in Trinity bay Cavendish, Chance Cove, Freshwater in Conception bay, Gooseberry Cove, Hant's Harbour, Deer Harbour, Lead Cove, Lower Island Cove, Low Point, Monroe, New Harbour, Old Pelican and Winterton. Dredging is also necessary in many places in my riding, particularly at Cupids where John Guy founded a colony in 1610. I am sure that the minister of public works will consider these requests. I know that he is unable to fulfil all the requirements of my riding but I feel confident that these requests will receive consideration by his department and what cannot be done this year or next year will probably be done in the near future. Mr. Batten: Mr. Chairman, I realize that by this time there is not much room left on the minister's shelf. He said a few moments ago that the amount of work done would be in inverse proportion to the length of the speech and I will take him at his word. I hope when I am finished that the possibility of getting done what we want done will be a probability of at least one project. When the minister is making up his estimates for the coming year I would be very pleased if he would have a look at the need for harbour installations at Port au Port, Ship Cove, Parson's Pond, Corner Brook and St. George's. I have made my remarks short, Mr. Chairman. Item agreed to. 348. New Brunswick, $4,060,500. Mr. McWilliam: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the minister on a tour of all the coves and inlets in Northumberland- Miramichi, but I notice that in the estimates there are only two items, one for $32,000 and the other for $40,000. However, there are a number of places along the coastline of Northumberland-Miramichi which are in need of facilities and in some cases improvements to existing facilities. The fisheries of North- umberland-Miramichi are very diversified, including all the delicacies that come from the sea, and the people of that part of the [Mr. Tucker.] riding derive their livelihood from fishing. The minister may not be as familiar as the department is with the requests that have been made in the past for improved facilities and in some cases new facilities where no facilities exist. I urge the minister to take a look at the requests that have been made from time to time in the past. I too would invite the minister to come down to the famous Miramichi river which is often re- ferred to as the Rhine of America. He would probably enjoy his visit very much, much more than he enjoyed the trip he made last March. I should like to refer to a matter which, while it has nothing to do with any particular item, would, I think, come under rivers and harbours. I would ask the minister to advise me, not necessarily in the house, with regard to the inquiry I made to him concerning the department's policy as to responsibility for the construction of a bridge over the Mira- michi river at Chatham. I do not think there is anything more I want to say. I have spoken in general terns. I realize that everything cannot be done in one year but I find that the estimates covering Northumberland- Miramichi are probably less this year than they have been for many years. It may be that will be offset next year by a very good vote and the provision of money for those facilities needed by the fishermen of that area. Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I too do not want to take too much time of the committee at this time but I have a few questions which I should like the minister to answer. Instead of making a statement I will simply ask a few questions which I hope the minister will be able to answer. Could the minister advise the committee what the program of the department is in connection with the wharf extension at Maisonnette? I brought this up in my remarks on the first item of these estimates. I mentioned at that time that the minister had a golden opportunity to provide employment in a fishing community. By extension of the wharf at Maisonnette I am sure the fishermen of the area and others would be provided with employment. I should also like to ask the minister what the present plan is with regard to improve- ment of Bathurst harbour. I notice an item of $100,000 covering dredging of Bathurst harbour this year but I understand that this item is to cover work done in previous years by departmental dredge No. 4 which I under- stand has been scrapped by the department this year. Would the minister answer these questions? Mr. Green: First of all, with regard to Maisonnette; the situation there is that the HOUSE OF COMMONS1448 department estimates tbat the cost of pro- viding a 208-foot extension ta the existing 290-foot structure, including a small quantity of very castly rock dredging, would be ap- praximately $164,000. Preliminary reports indicate that the commercial activity tbere wauld not justify an expendîture of this amount. However, we are baving another look at it ini order ta get a more detailed repart. With regard ta Bathurst, tbe situation there Is that sbortly alter tbe new government taak aver we decided that it would be of great advantage ta nortbern New Brunswick if a smelter were ta be bult at Bathurst. As the bon. member knows tbere have been very important finds of zinc, I presume in bis county or perbaps it is in the adjaining caunty. However, there was a very promising mine in the province, in a place wbere it was not expected there wauld be such large base metal reserves. The mine was in opera- tion, and we decided that we woulid spend up ta $3.5 million for dredging at Bathurst ta make it possible ta use the wbarf ta tbe full extent, providing that the mining com- pany would undertake ta erect a smelter, and wharf. We bad very bigb bopes that tbey would agree, and I think for some time they were about ta commence this project. However, as bon. members know, the price of zinc bas fallen a great deal in recent montbs, and for the time being there is no prospect of the company building a smelter at Bathurst. In fact I think tbey bave closed down their mining operations in recent weeks. This offer by the gavernment still stands. We believe that a base metal smelter at Batburst would be of immense value ta the wbale of tbe maritimes, and would be one of the most important developments that could be under- taken anywhere in Canada. There is power now being produced at Beecbwood, and the fact there is cbeaper power available is very rnaterial in this wbole picture. We bave not lost interest in Bathurst bar- bour. The vote of $100,000 does not replace the other development. As I bave already pointed out, we stili bave in mind going on with tbe full scale barbour develapment pro- vided a smelter is erected in Bathurst. I would point out tbat this $100,000 is ta be expended for dredging in Bathurst. There are other expenditures in the bon. member's riding. For example, harbour impravements at Blue Cave will cost $110,000 and break- water repairs at St. Mary's, $50,000. There may be athers, but we are very mucb in- terested in Batburst. Mr. Robichaud: I arn pleased to bear the minister say that the offer for improvement 57071-3-92 Supply-Public Warks of Batburst barbour stili stands pending action by the mining company. I would hope that in the meantime consideration would be given to the immediate improvement of this harbour, especially wharfage facilities. Bathurst is a shipping port and at the present time there is no public wharf which could be used to advantage by shipping interests. There are two more questions wbich I should like the minister to answer. Has any consideration been given to the removal of the old breakwater at the entrance to Tracadie harbour? I mentioned this in my remarks when these estimates were introduced. This aid breakwater is definitely blocking the en- trance and it is a menace ta navigation which could resuit in the loss of if e. Mr. Green: In so far as the possible menace to navigation in Tracadie harbour is con- cerned, aur officiais are now estimating the cost of removing the existing north break- water ruins, and folawing a review of the report cansideration will be given ta wbat- ever action is indicated. Mr. Robichaud: Again I wish ta thank the minister for this action being taken by bis department in relation ta Tracadie harbaur. My last question is this. On June 13 the minister said that the Chignecto canal was being studied by bis department. Is the minister now in a position ta report ta this committee on what action has been taken by bis department in connection with the Chignecto, canal? Mr. Green: No, Mr. Chairman, the study is stili under way. Mr. Robichaud: How far has the study been carried? Have any engineers of the department been instructed ta make pre- liminary plans? Mr. Green: This study is being carried on witbin the department, and I arn afraid I cannot go any further than that. Mr. Rabichaud: Can the minister also report now as ta the progress which bas been made in the survey in connection with the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway? Mr. Green: I would be deligbted ta talk about that. There is a substantial vote for tbis item, but I have mislaid my notes. I wil be glad ta deal witb it, wben we came ta tbat vote. item agreed ta. 349. Quebec. $4.036,100. Mr. Baurque: Mr. Chairman, I see that in vote 349, tbe province of Quebec wiU receive $4,036,100. The province of Newfoundland JUNE 19. 1958 1449 HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works will receive $3,640,000; Nova Scotia, $4,057,- 500; New Brunswick, $4,060,500. I am certainly glad to see that these provinces are going to get a substantial amount. I see also that Ontario will receive $11,642,900. No doubt the province requires that amount, and I am glad to see they are going to get it. But you will notice that in four provinces you have 74 per cent of a total amount of $31,919,500. Toronto harbour itself is going to get $4,438,500, which is more than the whole province of Quebec is going to have, namely $4,036,100. I see there is no appropriation for Montreal harbour, for Quebec harbour or for the Three Rivers harbour. As we have a very large number of unemployed at the present time in Montreal, I find it to be rather funny that Montreal and the whole province of Quebec are going to get such a small sum. I was wondering what the minister had to say on that point. Mr. Green: It is not possible to allot money on the basis of the proportionate size of the provinces. These problems, of course, are com- pletely different in every province. New- foundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, with their long coast lines, have many maritime harbour problems. Then they may vary from year to year. One year there will be a big project under way in one particular part of the country and smaller ones in another part. It is therefore not fair to review the estimates on the basis of setting out one province against another. In so far as Montreal is concerned, much to my surprise the hon. member has con- pletely overlooked the fact that Montreal is under the national harbours board and is not under the Department of Public Works at all. The noneys spent on the St. Lawrence river there are spent by the Department of Trans- port and not by the Department of Public Works at all. If we had all the figures of all the government expenditures on Montreal and Toronto, I think there might be protests coming from Toronto rather than Montreal. However, I do not want to get the members from those two cities fighting it out on the floor of the house. Nevertheless I point out that both Montreal and Quebec are under the national harbours board which does not come under the Department of Public Works at all. This is true also of Three Rivers and Chi- coutimi. Mr. Bourque: Am I to understand from the minister that Toronto harbour comes under the Department of Public Works? Mr. Green: Toronto harbour is under the Toronto harbour commission. It is like quite a few other harbours across Canada. There is a bill coming up at this session to establish a harbour commission at the lakehead which [Mr. Bourque.] will cover the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur. In all fairness to Toronto I must say that although this city bas been on fresh water and has been an inland port and will be one, of course, until the seaway is com- pleted, the people there have spent millions and millions of their own dollars to develop the harbour of Toronto. I do not suppose there is another city in Canada which bas paid so much good hard cash to build up its own harbour. They do not want to be under the national harbours board. Apparently their wish is to run their own harbour. But the harbour of Montreal, like the harbour in my home'city of Vancouver, has had millions of dollars spent on it by the national harbours board. I do not think that any criticism can be made of Toronto by way of comparison of federal money that bas been spent on the Toronto harbour and on other harbours. Mr. Bourque: The minister says that the port of Toronto comes under the Toronto harbour commission. But if you have $4 mil- lion corning from the Department of Public Works there, what would be the equivalent that Montreal would get? If Montreal does not get anything from anybody-and they must, of course-it would be unfair. Mr. Green: When the hon. member says that Montreal does not get anything from anybody- Mr. Bourque: Pardon me, but I did not say that. Mr. Green: -may I point out that Montreal is getting millions and millions of dollars. This St. Lawrence seaway development is meaning an expenditure of many millions of dollars in Montreal. As I say, these estimates do not come under the Department of Public Works; they come under the Departnent of Transport. Mr. Bourque: That is the point I wanted to make. What would be the equivalent? If you give the port of Toronto $4 million, then Montreal would get the equivalent from the harbour commission. You are not giving Toronto something that you do not give to Montreal. Mr. Green: We are not in a position to know that because we have no jurisdiction over the harbour of Montreal. Mr. Bourque: No comparison can be made? Mr. Green: No. Mr. Cardin: May I first of all tell the minister that I am happy indeed that the government has decided this year to carry out the several projects that were conceived and planned by the previous government. As hon. members know and as does the JUNE 19, 1958 minister, my riding lies along the St. Law- rence river, and owing to the heavy naviga- tion a considerable amount of damage has been done to the shore. Over the years a series of retaining walls has been built in order to protect the shore from erosion. I am happy to see that this year the program with respect to retaining walls is being continued. I am particularly happy also to see in the estimates an item for the St. Anne retaining wall. That particular project is an urgent one. It is a residential area of greater Sorel and the shore is quite close to the channel. Over a period of years the lapping of the waves has deteriorated the shore to such an extent that some of the buildings in that particular area have been in danger of being affected by the erosion. I recall that there were to have been negotiations between the Department of Public Works and the municipality of St. Anne with regard to the reconstruction of that particular wharf. I do not know at what stage the negotiations may be at this date. However, if it were useful for the depart- ment, I should be happy to try to arrange for negotiations between the municipality and the department so as to try to get this work done as quickly as possible and cer- tainly, if it were possible, before winter sets in. There is another item that I should like to mention at this time. It has to do with the improvements of harbours in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway. The seaway, of course, has been expected to bring into Canada an economie potential that we did not have previously. We have a right to expect that the ports all along the seaway will benefit from this great project. Sorel, of course, is one of the ports which does not come under the national harbours board and apparently has not received a great deal of attention in the sphere of harbour im- provements. I understand that a secret survey has been made of the different ports that will have to be improved in connection with the seaway. I certainly hope that Sorel is included in that particular survey. The other day the hon. member for Laurier mentioned the usefulness of having some of the ports increase their grain elevator capac- ity. I understand, of course, it is not up to the Department of Public Works to in- crease the capacity of grain elevators already in existence, but in Sorel the North American elevators have plans to double their grain capacity. In order to do so they would have to make some changes on the wharf upon which these elevators are built. As a matter of fact, the North American elevator wharf takes the form of an L, and in order to be 57071-3-92J Supply-Public Works able to accommodate the larger vessels which we expect will sail on the seaway, one part of that wharf will have to be eut off. This will mean that a new wharf will have to be added in the port of Sorel. Some years ago preliminary work was done in order to bring about this improvement, and I understand that soundings have been taken in an endeavour to figure out where would be the best location for the new wharf. I would indeed be happy to know what progress has been made with respect to the re-arrangement of the wharf. I would like to mention very briefly one last point, which subject bas been a sore spot for some years. I refer to Ste. Anne's in the St. Lawrence, where there is a series of islands used for a number of generations for the growing of hay. During winter months this hay has always been transported from the islands to the mainland but, as the minis- ter knows, some years ago there was a decision to bring in the icebreaker between the islands to keep the channel open during the winter months. The farmers, therefore, can no longer transport their hay over the ice. This cannot be helped and we would not want to stop progress but it does cause some difficulty because, in order to transport the hay over the water the farmers have to take barges and, owing to the irregular shoreline, it is very difficult for them to put the wagons on scows. I would hope that the minister and his department will seriouslyconsider building some slips at a strategic point so that the farmers can transport their produce in a relatively easy fashion. This question has been raised previously and has been bounced around between the Department of Public Works and the Depart-ment of Transport. I appeal to the minister to try to find some solution. It is all very well to have these legal conflicts between different departments but it is most unfair for the farmers to be left holding the bagwith a very serious resulting loss of crops. I would conclude by saying that I am very grateful that the department is con- tinuing with the program of public works in this particular area, particularly with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. If it does what it is expected to do it will bring about a position where navigation will be doubled, as will the erosion along the shore line. It would therefore be wise, in my opinion, to do as much of the work on the retaining walls as is possible in the shortest possible time. Mr. Green: We will be very glad to look into the projects mentioned by the hon. mem- ber. He has mentioned a wharf at Sorel, and Supply-Public Works on that I would inform him that a few days ago I interviewed a representative of the North American elevator company. This is a very big project and if the dominion gov- ernment were to do as the hon. member sug- gests it would cost us from $1.5 million to $2 million to change the wharf. While the wharf does belong to the government it is rented to that company, and is used by that company. Whether we would be justified in spending this amount of money under these conditions I am not yet sure. Mr. Cardin: Has any economie survey been made before arriving at that particular con- clusion? Of course, it is a large amount of money to be spent but, on the other hand, I also feel that one cannot expect to improve harbours without spending money. I had understood that besides the seaway itself, serious consideration was being given to im- provement of harbours, and I feel this would certainly be a practical way of improving Sorel harbour, which would bring a good deal of business to that particular area. In this connection I would point out that Sorel is at the junction of the Richelieu and St. Lawrence rivers. There are great possibili- ties in this area which I hope the minister will seriously consider. Mr. Green: No conclusion has yet been reached, but there is only one company con- cerned. This is not a question of a general wharf for everybody's use; it is a wharf used by one company. It may be possible to work out some plan under which the com- pany would pay a portion of the cost of any alteration. However, we have the matter under consideration. Mr. Bourget: Along the same line, the minister has said that his offer of $3.5 mil- lion for Bathurst still stands, and I wonder why a similar off er should not be made for the port of Sorel, even if the private com- pany has to pay a share. I do remember the policy of the department has been to ask private concerns to pay at least a share of the cost of a wharf such as this but, surely, if the minister is ready to pay the whole cost of a wharf in Bathurst, New Brunswick, there should be no reason why at least half that off er should not be made to help the port of Sorel. Mr. Green: The work at Bathurst is dredg- ing, and in this case the mining company would be constructing a smelter and would spend something over $20 million. Mr. Cardin: Could the minister tell the committee whether the preliminary work on the new wharf, such as soundings, etc., is continuing? [Mr. Green.] Mr. Green: Apparently there are many engineering problems in connection with al- terations to the pier and the studies have not yet been completed. Mr. Cardin: But they are continuing? Mr. Green: Yes, that is right. Mr. Bourget: I have just one more question, and it is about retaining walls. I suppose that regarding this item the same rules apply to the protection works and the retaining walls. Mr. Green: Protection walls as they are ordinarily described come under the vote for remedial works. Mr. Bourget: If the minister will look in Quebec he will find many retaining walls. I do remember that in the past we had the same kind of item, and I am not questioning it, but I would ask the minister to explain his policy with regard to retaining walls. I know that in the past they were attached to the item of protection works, but there were some big items which were separated. Mr. Green: The larger items are provided by a special vote but the great bulk come under remedial works vote. Mr. Bourget: My question was, do the same rules for protection work apply for retaining walls built on navigable water. There are many items- Mr. Green: The limitation is described in item 355; to provide for remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navi- gation or federal government structures. That would apply to the items which are listed under the provincial votes as well as to the items which come under 365. Mr. Bourget: Do they come under the same rules as protection walls? Mr. Green: Yes. Mr. Bourget: Would the minister explain if the retaining wall in St. Joseph-St. Hyacinthe is built on navigable water? Mr. Green: That work is necessary because of changes brought about by a federal struc- ture which was placed on the opposite side of the river at this point. It comes in the category of federal government structures. Mr. Bourget: I remember that item very well because I took a personal interest in that case, and it was studied two or three times by engineers and it was found out that it did not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We had three reports on that work in previous years. I remember the minister telling me once that we were building some protection works to protect HOUSE OF COMMONS1452 JUNE 19, 1958 some Liberal farmers. Now I can tell him he is building one ta protect Tory farmers. Mr. Green: I think the situation is that you were building a protection wall on one side of the river, and we are building a wali on the other. I went into this whole question very carefully; we met a delegation from down there and we iooked into the matter very carefully, and what I have said is actually a fact. Because of the work on the other side of the river erosion had been caused on the side where we intended to put a wall, and we decided it was aur obligation to do it for that reason. Mr. Bourget: I want ta tell the minister that I am not against it; I arn glad this bas been given ta, St. Hyacinthe, but I remnember well that two or three studies were made, with the resuits which 1 have stated. As an engi- neer I do not think the technique of engineer- ing bas changed in s0 short a time, and I arn quite confident in saying that it bas been done this year to proteet Tory f armers. Mr. Green: This is just one more case where we have been improving on the policy of the former government. Mr. Bourget: Nat improving. You have been making accusations about patronage, but here is one example of waste and extravagance. Mr. Ricard: I shouid like ta submit ta the conunittee that the necessity for this protec- tion wali bas been sustained by independent engineers who have stated that the federai structure is responsible for the erosion at St. Joseph. Mr. Bourget: In repiy may I say that the independent engineers are not in charge of the Department of Public Works, and it is not the independent engineers who apply the rules and policy of the department but the chief engineer, the deputy minister and the officiais of the department. Mr. Pickersgil: And the minister. Mr. Ricard: Weli, Mr. Chairman, the recommendation of the independent engineer has been accepted by the minister and by the department and it is ail ta their credit. Item agreed to. 350. Ontario, $11.642.900. Mr. Fisher: One month from today, on Juiy 19, there is a community in xny canstituency that is golng ta be having a tremendous influx of people for the very weil known lake Superior Rossport fish derby, and every year the remarks are generally the saie, that the dock facilities in that particular place are very bad, and inadequate for Rossport even as a flshing village, but in view of the tre- niendous inerease of tourist trafice we have Supply-Public Works coming in there we are quite dissatisfled. Now I do flot think the people of the Port Arthur constituency are wharf loyers, dock loyers or breakwater loyers such as they are in Bonavista-Twillingate, but there are a few improvements which are certainly needed, and if the Minister of Public Works would care to provide thern and visit the flsh, derby at Rossport we could give him the honour of presenting the prizes; he might even win a trip to Jamaica, Hawaii or some other in- teresting place. This is one item I hope the minister's department wiii look into-at least repair the dock and, possibly, extend the quay. Another place in the constituency, outside Port Arthur, where some work needs to be done is the Nipigon river where it flows into the bay. The erosion caused by the tre- mendous arnount of pulp that goes down is presenting a seriaus problem. Almost every spring the C.P.R. has to post slow orders on its bridge there because of the risk, and I feel, strongly supported by the members of the community of Nipigon, that an investiga- tion should be made at this particular spot to see if some formi of retaining waii cannot be put up where the river goes down into the bay. It would have to be a very extensive retaining waii because the river flows very swiftly; the Nipigon river is the largest flow- ing into lake Superior. This is something that needs to be done because I think eventually it is going to cause a great deai of trouble to the bridges there and of course it increases the silt flowing into Nipigon harbour and increases the dredging problemn there. I wanted earlier in the minister's statemient to ask hirn ta give us the distinction between harbour improvements and dredging and I hope he wiil flnd time ta make it clear, be- cause people at the iakehead cannot quite fol- low that distinction and it is impossible ta foilow It from the estimnates. There is one point in connection with dredging that I shouid like ta make. If the minister does corne up to the Port Arthur constituency for the flsh derby I wiii try to get hlm introduced to two gentlemen who dlaim. ta be the official. representatives of the government in that area. These are the two defeated Conservative candidates. One of those defeated candidates made the announcement before the iast election that he had obtained an extension of a dredging contract in the turning basin of the Fort William harbour. I happen ta know that the former member-you ail remember the Reverend Dan McIvor-had been very active in pressing for this and I remember that this particular incident got Mr. Mclvor's Irish dander up, and I did not blame him. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-Public Works Again I would like to return from this specific example to the problem that I pre- sented to the minister before. I know he takes a certain partisan glee in tossing things back and forth, especially to the official opposition. It seems to me there is a definite point of political morality involved in this whole question of announcements of government projects throughout the country. No one could object to the government mak- ing an announcement, or to the party which composes the government taking credit for doing things, but when you have defeated candidates posing as the people who actually obtained these things I think you are intro- ducing the whole idea of patronage which the minister is trying to stamp out. I was stunned to read in the paper tonight that the hon. member for Carleton has come out with the statement-and this is on this very point--that he cannot handle all the prob- lems that come to him because the rest of the members in the city of Ottawa are from the Liberal party. Again there is the insin- uation that in order to get things done you have to go to a government member; that is the only way you can get something done. It raises the whole question of patronage, and if the minister is really going to stamp out patronage why can he not stamp out this practice of having defeated candidates make announcements and let us have the announce- ments made in Ottawa, or made by the divi- sional engineers in the area, rather than carrying on this old idea? I think in terms of political morality it is necessary that you move that one step farther. After all, it is a very small and pretty cheap advantage. In connection with harbour improvements at the lakehead, I have already made repre- sentations to the department that certain kinds of rock work will have to be done within the next two years in the lakehead harbour. I know that that will by and large be a problem of the lakehead harbour com- mission that is to be set up. I hope you are not chatting about political morality with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He set us back a decade in some ways by that long oration of his tonight. The rock work that will have to be done in the lakehead harbour is such that it has been proved feasible in the past to do it in the winter time. As hon. members know, we have an unemployment problem every winter in Port Arthur and Fort William and the truck work and the rock-breaking work and the placing of the rocks could be done quite adequately in the winter. I would like to remind the minister that this is something I hope he is planning for right now in so far as next winter is concerned because the [Mr. Fisher.] work will have to be done sooner or later and we are going to have an unemployment problem. There is one point on the lakehead terminals which I would like the minister to clear up and it is in a sense a harbour improvement. Why is there nothing in the estimates for that project? When the min- ister made his opening remarks on his estimates he made the announcement that Port Arthur and Fort William were going to get $3 million or $4 million spent on them, and also that there was going to be a group of engineers working on the project? Where is the money for those engineers and for that engineering study? It is not that I am distrustful of the minister, but I would like to know where the money is coming from for the initial work on this project? It is very important. I should like to touch on another point which I brought up earlier and on which I was unable to get an answer from the min- ister. I can speak on it in connection with this wharf or dock at Kenora. It has to do with the question of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and prevailing rates on public works projects and the liaison between the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works. When a contractor puts in a tender is it perfectly clear in his mind that if he does not pay the prevailing rate he can be forced into it by the government, and that cost will be added to the contract, or will it be added to the contract and be recoverable, or is it a loss that he will have to absorb himself? These are the general questions I wanted to put to the minister. I would like to ask him some further ques- tions. I see the hon. member for Fort William is in his seat; he can ask his own questions. Mr. Green: The Department of Labour polices those contracts. In so far as the questions of losses that the hon. member has mentioned are concerned, if it is necessary for the contractor to pay a higher rate, then that is his loss; the Department of Public Works does not have to make up the difference. With regard to the harbour developments at the lakehead, we have already engaged an engineering firm to draw up plans and the reason there is no vote is that the expense of the engineers is covered in one of the other votes. There is no vote for the actual con- struction yet because the plans have not been completed. The bon. member need have no fear, we are going ahead with the develop- ment at the lakehead and a very large and important development it will be. JUNE 19, 1958 In regard ta defeated candidates making announcements, here I think the hon. member is being a little hypersensitive. Nobody knows anytbing about those jobs until the tenders are called and then they are common knowl- edge, printed and published in the papers. The tender cail is published and some people are active and interested in the work of par- liament, interested ini getting themselves elected, and tbey naturally try ta foilow these things very closely. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Green: Perhaps if the hon. member had kept dloser to the proceedings he would have got the information himself. Certainly tbere is notbing secret about it. The work of the department is an open book. The hon. mem- ber obviously was not hurt very much by anytbing that the defeated candidate did ta him in Port Arthur. Mr. Fisher: I think the minister is shying away from wbat I still think 15 a point of political moralîty. Mr. Green: We do not make a practice of notifying defeated candidates, but if anybody wants ta write in and make inquiries we do our best to advise tbem of what is going on. Tbe hon. member for Levis asked me for the number of additions to the staff of archi- tects and engineers since July 1 of last year. Tbere are 36 more engineers, il of them being in the Yukon and the Nortbwest Terri- tories. There is an increase of seven in Banff- Edmonton and 10 in Ottawa. Then there are other minor changes. Mr. Bourget: Are they fuli-time engineers? Mr. Green: Most of these were three to five years. As ta the architects, there is anly one more now tban there was on July 1 of 1957. I misinformed the hon. member for Burin- Burgeo about what would happen where tenders were called for furniture in a gov- ernment building in St. John's, Newfoundland. I said that tbe tender call would go out from Montreal but it goes out from Ottawa. Supply-Publie Works Mr. Pickersgill: I think that was my question. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman-- Some han. Members: Ten o'clock. Mr. Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, just before you eaUl it ten o'clock, I think we on this side of the bouse-I speak at least for the officiai opposition-would be prepared to go on a littie longer if the minister would like to. Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Winch: Ten o'clock. Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Pickersgill: I wonder whetber the leader could tell us what is proposed, flot merely for tomorrow, because I think that is common knowledge, but for the beginning of the week. Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, an arrangement bas been reached among the three parties that the private members' day set for next Monday will be postponed. That wiil make it possible for us to take the budget debate ail next week. I arn hopeful that we can get agreement to a one day supply motion on tbe following Monday. Then we would go on and finish the budget debate a week frorn next Wednesday. July 1 comes on Tuesday and while it is the intention to sit on that day there may be an adjournment for a period of time. I believe a ceremony is taking place on the grounds and we do not want to have the final vote on July 1. That is just tentative. It may be that we wîll not be able to reach agreement with the parties concerning a week fromn Monday, but ail next week is to be tbe budget debate. As the first business tomorrow we would like to get third reading of the bill to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. It being five minutes after ten o'clock the bouse adjourned, witbout question put, pursuant to standing order. HOUSE OF COMMONS Supply-tems Passed [The following items were passed in committee cf supply]: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 341. Improvements generally-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of Treasury Board, $700.000. 342. Maintenance and operation of public build- ings and grounds, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,300,000, $44,000,000. 343. Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $1,818,650. 344. Expenses of work In the Interests of fire prevention, $174,263. Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services- Acquisition, construction and improvement of harbour and river works- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and lm- provements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects- 345. Newfoundland, $3,640,000. 346. Nova Scotia, $4,057,500. 347. Prince Edward Island, $1,309,500. 348. New Brunswick, $4,060,500. 349. Quebec, $4,036,100. 603. Furniture and furnishings for govermnent departments-further amount required, $333,450. Harbours and rivers engineering services- Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, har- bour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects -further amounts required- 604. Newfoundland, $697,000. 605. Nova Scotia, $800,000. 606. Quebec, $1,078,000. 1457 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, June 20, 1958 The house met at eleven o'clock. MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Second report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, some days ago the Leader of the Opposition asked whether I might say a word or two with regard to the meeting that took place last week with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I say to him at once that I undertook to do so the next day, but in the course of the debate that arose I omitted to do so. The discussions I had with Mr. Macmillan provided an opportunity to renew at first hand the understanding of our respective points of view. As both the late Mr. King and former prime minister Mr. St. Laurent said on more than one occasion, such con- sultations are a feature of the unique quality of the commonwealth. It is one of the priv- ileges of membership in this commonwealth that prime ministers who share these ties can hold friendly and forthright discussions with each other from time to time about the problems which affect their respective coun- tries, and also in a broader world context. In the talks we reviewed a number of in- ternational problems, ranging from the pro- posed summit conference to developments in the Middle East and the problems at the moment being faced by the republic of France. We also spent some time in ex- changing views on economic developments, particularly those relating to the forth- coming commonwealth trade and economic conference. As hon. members know, the Canadian gov- ernment has felt that a summit conference might resolve some of the issues affecting relations of the free world and the com- munist bloc. But we also believe that before any such conference is called there must be full preparation on the lower levels in order to assure a reasonable degree of success. Many there are who look with anticipation to the holding of a summit conference as though it would resolve all of the problems, 57071-3-93 or many of the problems, that have existed between the free world and the communist countries since 1945. For that reason every- thing must be done, if a conference is to be called, to assure that it shall not fail in its objectives when it is convened. This would, I think, be worse than not having a conference at all. As hon. members know, technical dis- cussions will commence at Geneva on July 1 regarding atomic inspection and the detec- tion of nuclear explosions, in which confer- ence the United Kingdom, the United States and the U.S.S.R. will participate, as well as other interested countries. If in consequence of this meeting in Geneva tangible progress is made, I think we might then be more optimistic about a summit conference taking place. Mr. Macmillan and I hope that a summit conference will take place, but both are aware of the fact that the west has not yet had any very encouraging indications from the U.S.S.R. that would lead the free world to believe confidently that the cold war will cease. When I make that statement I do so as well in the light of events that have taken place in the last few days in Hungary, and also the extent to which Mr. Khrushchev has added to the propaganda warfare that has existed for the last year or so, and to an intensified extent in the last few days. Reference was also made to the political developments in Lebanon, and recently my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs reported on the part Canada could take in co-operation with other members of the United Nations in assisting the security council in its efforts to bring about an end to the disorders in that country. It was agreed among us that respect for the ideals of the United Nations in the Middle East, as elsewhere, would be a help to the observers of the United Nations in their task in that area. Another political development in the Mid- dle East which has disturbed the free world, and particularly us in Canada because of our membership in the commonwealth and in NATO, has been the disorderly situation in Cyprus. I can only say that as a result of the initiative being taken by the United Kingdom government in its latest proposals that were revealed yesterday in the House of Commons thete it is to be hoped that a solution of this Discussion with U.K. Prime Minister problem may be worked out within a frame- work of conciliation and compromise. Discussions also centred around the situa- tion in France, our close friend and valiant ally, and I think there is reason to be optimis- tic that the worst of the difficulties in that nation is over and that under General de Gaulle, our loyal and brave friend during the dark days of the last war, Canada will be able to look forward to seeing France re- solve its present problems and to a continua- tion of intimate collaboration with France under General de Gaulle. As well we discussed the economic outlook on both sides of the Atlantic and its relation to the main problems and issues of policy that the United Kingdom and Canada are now considering. These discussions involved trade and economic development, not only as regards our two countries directly but also in respect of our relations with other coun- tries as well. The main subjects of economic discussion were the policies to be followed at and the preparations being made for the commonwealth trade and economic confer- ence. This included a review of a number of matters that are being studied by officials from all commonwealth countries in London at the present time, to the end that proper foundations will be laid for a successful conference. Throughout these discussions there was a full realization of the ever-growing Soviet attack on the vulnerable and comparatively weakly defended economic front of the free world. It seems clear that this economic challenge is designed to outflank the political and military defences of the west. I believe that counteraction will be required in this field and can only be taken by co-operative measures to meet this new Soviet offensive. During the next few months the Canadian government jointly with our friends and allies will take steps to meet this new Soviet offensive. Discussions are already under way with the North Atlantic treaty council, and I be- lieve the result we hope will be achieved at the forthcoming trade and economic confer- ence in September will tend to strengthen the economies of the free world. That in general represents in summation the matters that we considered and discussed. Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): May I thank the Prime Minister for his summary of the discussions he had with the United Kingdom Prime Minister, which I am sure have emphasized and strengthened the feeling of friendship and close relationship between our two countries, not only in respect of their bilateral nature but in their working together to reduce [Mr. Diefenbaker.] tensions and strengthen the chances of peace. I am sure Mr. Macmillan's visit was helpful in that regard. May I ask the Prime Minister one question arising out of his statement. In the discussion of economic matters with the United King- dom Prime Minister, was advantage taken of the occasion to go into the United Kingdom free trade offer made to Canada last year? Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister. I think we have all wel- comed the statement he has just made. We feel that having meetings from time to time between the Prime Minister of this country and the prime minister of any other common- wealth nation is an excellent thing and should be promoted. I was interested in his statement on the forthcoming commonwealth confer- ence, but I felt the statement was somewhat vague and inexact and that it did not give us any great hope that real accomplishments might come from that conference. I am hoping that recent action taken by this government will not make the work of that conference more difficult. We realize that throughout the world today there are many areas of great tension, and we hope the free nations of the world will have success in easing this tension and pro- moting freedom and democracy throughout the world. Along with the Prime Minister we in this group are concerned with recent events in Hungary, and we are afraid these may spell a change of tactics in the Soviet union itself. We hope also that the forth- coming conference in July on the control of atomic explosions and atomic inspection will prove fruitful. As to the summit conference, we hope with- out reservation that one will be held, and held soon. I am not one of those who feel we should give undue weight to preparations being made in every single detail as a pre- requisite to such a conference being held. We feel the west should seize the initiative now by agreeing readily to such a summit conference and, if it is a failure, allot the blame where it is due. But we could err by insisting there should be too much in the way of detailed advance preparation, thereby laying ourselves open to the accusation that we were making it more difficult for such a conference to be held. We hope such a con- ference will be held, that it will reduce world tension, and that it will result in the strength- ening of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Mr. Diefenbaker: I thank both hon. gentle- men for their contributions. I want to say, HOUSE OF COMMONS1458 in so far as the latter remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia are concerned, that all of us are desirous of having a summit meeting, but that a meeting called without adequate preparation would inevitably lead to unsuccess. This government bas strongly supported the need for action with regard to a summit conference being called, but after all it is of prime importance that everything should be done in anticipation to assure that the issues will be properly placed before that conference, and the necessary preparations made for this purpose, so there will be no excuse for failure. As far as the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to trade policy is concerned, we did discuss United Kingdom negotiations with the various European coun- tries in the European free trade area, but there was no discussion of the United King- dom plan for forming a free trade area with Canada. Mention was made, I think the other day, with respect to the plans for the common- wealth conference. An agenda is being worked out; consideration is now being given to all the phases of the matters which should and will be discussed. As I said a moment ago, a meeting is now being held in London among the nations affected, to the end that the conference will have beneficial results. HUNGARY-CANADIAN PROTEST RESPECTING EXECUTION OF FORMER LEADERS On the orders of the day: Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has conveyed to the Hungarian government the detestation which I am sure all Canadians feel at the brutal execution-perhaps murder would be a better word-of the former pre- mier of Hungary and three of his associates in the Hungarian people's revolt for liberty in 1956? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet sent that message, but I join with the Leader of the Opposition in the words he has used to describe and portray the diabolical action that bas taken place in this case. I certainly will follow immediately the sug- gestion of communicating the feelings of Canadians as a whole at the institution of the unjustifiable terrorist policy that has just borne its latest fruits. COMMUNIST CHINA-REPORTED GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE TOWARD RECOGNITION On the orders of the day: Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct 57071-3-931 Ontario Grain-Base Prices to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister has seen an article by Mr. Charles Lynch in the Ottawa Citizen of June 19, which states that the reason the Canadian govern- ment will not diplomatically recognize China is that the government is in fear of embarras- sing the United States. If so, would he care to indicate whether this article is a true reflection of the policy of the government in this regard? Some hon. Members: Order. Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is not for the government to comment on such articles. The attitude of this government has at ail times been a realistic one undominated in any way by any other government, and so it will remain. GRAIN ANNOUNCEMENT OF BASE PRICES FOR ONTARIO WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agricul- ture): I wish to announce that, in accordance with the requirements of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the agricultural stabiliza- tion board has established base prices, based on the average prices for the last ten years, for wheat, oats and barley. The Ontario basis is as follows: Ontario wheat, $1.77 per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality; Ontario oats, 72 cents per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality; Ontario barley, $1.04 per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality. Using the above mentioned base prices the board has established a mandatory 80 per cent support price which will be in effect for the 12-month period starting July 1, 1958, as follows: Ontario wheat, $1.42 per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality; Ontario oats, 58 cents per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality; Ontario barley, 83 cents per bushel on track for No. 2 C.E. or better quality. In the case of other provinces, outside the designated Canadian wheat board areas, where any of these grains are grown in commercial quantities, the support prices will be estab- lished in appropriate relationship to the above mentioned Ontario prices. Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East): With regard to the mandatory price of $1.42, am I not correct in saying that this is not the figure which bas been urged upon the minister by a number of representative groups of Ontario farmers, who have discussed this matter with him within the last few months? Is it not also a fact that they have indicated the great danger in the future of a price at this level JUNE 20, 1958 1459 HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry being construed as and developing into a ceiling price rather than a floor price? Mr. Harkness: As I indicated to the hon. gentleman the other day in connection with soybeans, every group of producers naturally asks for a very high support price and the wheat producers through the Ontario wheat board did, of course, ask for a considerably higher price than the mandatory support price provided under the stabilization act. As far as this price becoming a ceiling is concerned, I do not think that will be the case, and I certainly hope it will not. The Ontario wheat board, in addition to having this support price provided for them, have applied to us under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act for authority to collect an equalization fee, as it might be called, or to make a levy of up to 9 cents per bushel to provide them with working capital to be used for taking care of this crop, paying storage charges and looking after the general han- dling of it. Their object, and I think this is what has been needed more than anything else as far as the marketing of Ontario wheat is concerned, is to prevent all this wheat from coming on the market in the fall. The hon. member for Essex East will per- haps remember that shortly after the harvest season last summer this wheat was down to $1.12 per bushel. This present action pro- vides an absolute floor of $1.42 per bushel; and I think the Ontario wheat board, by the use of this 9 cents levy which we have au- thorized them to collect, will be able to handle the crop, to feed it out gradually dur- ing the year and, I hope, to secure a con- siderably higher price than the $1.42. That, of course, is their objective. Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): I think the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and the question of the hon. member for Essex East clearly demonstrate that floor prices under this legislation do not in any way meet the wishes of the producers themselves, for the very obvious reason that the prices are based on 80 per cent of the average price for the last 10 years, so that the floor price is relatively low. Mr. Harkness: What is your question? Mr. Argue: I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a statement- Mr. Speaker: In order to clear up exactly where we are, I take it that we have reverted to motions and the Minister of Agriculture made his statement under motions. It would therefore be in order for both opposition parties to comment upon it. I do not think it is in order to ask questions. I believe the practice has been to comment briefly on a statement made by a minister under the [Mr. Martin (Essex East).] order for motions and to reserve questions until the orders of the day. Otherwise we tend to get into a debate, which is obviously not desirable at this stage of the proceedings. Mr. Argue: I thank you for your comment, Mr. Speaker. If I made an error it was in failing to rise following the hon. member for Essex East. I was saying that the statement of the Minister of Agriculture indicates that these prices have not met the demands of the producers of eastern Canada. In view of your statement I will reserve my further comment until the orders of the day. COAL NOVA SCOTIA-REPORTED SHUTDOWN OF MINES On the orders of the day: Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I understand that the Dominion Steel and Coal Company has an- nounced a five-week shutdown of its coal mines in Cape Breton and on the mainland of Nova Scotia due to lack of markets. In view of the hardship this step will cause to the 8,000 or 9,000 miners involved, can the min- ister assure the house that he and the dominion coal board will render every as- sistance toward reaching a solution to this very serious situation? Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his in- tention to ask this question. This situation has been under study by the government and the dominion coal board for several weeks and is under continuous study and consulta- tion with the company, but due to many factors we are not too hopeful that we can prevent the idle time which has been planned by the company. Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester): A sup- plementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the house if any definite action has been taken by the government on the request of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company for financial assistance? Mr. Comiois: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question today, but I am most hopeful of making a statement in this regard within a short time. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCES On the orders of the day: Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester): May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the critical situation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister take under JUNE 20, 1958 consideration making cash advances on sur- plus coal similar to the cash advances being made to western farmers? Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the question indicates that my hon. friend does not understand the system of cash advances to western farmers. So far as cash advances to western farmers are concerned, they are made in respect of a commodity, the monopoly privilege of deal- ing with which is a matter under the control of a government agency. Mr. Robichaud: The mine workers under- stand it, though. CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS HALIFAX BOARD OF TRADE REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING SALE On the orders of the day: Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret that he is not in his seat, but I assume the acting minister will take this as notice. Have representations been received by the Minister of Transport from the Halifax board of trade for a meeting between representatives of the board and the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Revenue to discuss the proposed sale of Canadian National Steamships vessels with a view to having the matter reconsidered, in view of the economic importance of the steamships service to Halifax and the future potential trade which might arise as a result of the West Indies federation? Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicifor General): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. POSTAL SERVICE MISTASSINI AND DOLBEAU, QUE.-DELAYED DELIvERY OF "LE DEVOIR" On the orders of the day: Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Post- master General. I received a complaint this morning from Mistassini and Dolbeau. Would the minister inquire why Le Devoir did not reach subscribers in Mistassini on Wednes- day, June 18, and those in Dolbeau on Thurs- day, June 19? On account of the declarations being made in the newspaper they are very anxious to get it every day. Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General): I will be very glad to look into this important matter which the hon. member has drawn to the attention. of the house. Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL TRANSFERRED- MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES On the orders of the day: Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koo±enay West): Mr. Speaker, in view of the repeatedly expressed interest of the Minister of National Defence in economies in his department, to the ad- vantage of the public purse and the pocket- books of the armed forces personnel, I address a question to the minister. In view of the fact that many members of the Cana- dian armed forces, when transferred from one province to another, are required to register and obtain new motor vehicle licen- ces, and in view of the fact that United States servicemen are allowed to use the registration and licence of their home state in any part of the United States, would the minister con- sider seeking the co-operation of the pro- vincial governments for the purpose of making arrangements that would save mem- bers of the armed forces this extra and unnecessary expense? Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this problem. I should like to take this opportu- nity of thanking the hon. member for his interest in the welfare of the armed services. Of course the problem is associated with the compulsory transfer of servicemen from one province to another. We have already taken up this matter with the provinces and several concessions have been made, for which I should like to express my appreciation to the provinces concerned. The problem is not merely restricted to servicemen, and it is possible that even some hon. members may be suffering from the same hardship. TRADE PURCHASE OF U. S. BUSES BY TORONTO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION On the orders of the day: Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I wish to direct a question to the acting minister. Has the acting minister re- ceived a communication from the united automobile workers, local 1075, of the Ca- nadian Car plant at Fort William and the Fort William city council, protesting the pur- chase of United States buses by the Toronto transportation commission? If so, in view of the still serious unemployment situation at the lakehead will the acting minister inform the house if she intends to suggest to the T.T.C. that they should consider placing the order with the Canadian Car company, which HOUSE OF COMMONS Inquiries of the Ministry is the only company, incidentally, manufac- turing buses in Canada? I might add- Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. member has explained his question suffi- ciently. I am doubtful whether it is a proper question because, as I understand it, it asks about the purchase of buses by the T.T.C. Mr. Badanai: The Toronto transportation commission. Mr. Speaker: That is not an organization under the direction of the Minister of Labour, and I doubt if the question can properly be asked of the Minister of Labour. Mr. Badanai: My question is whether the minister intends to use the influence of her office to suggest to the transportation company that the buses be purchased from the Fort William plant of the Canadian Car company. It will accomplish two things- Mr. Speaker: Order. I am doubtful whether the question, as finally expressed, is a proper one, but I do not object to the minister saying what she proposes to do with her influence. Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the first part of the question, which inquired whether or not I had received these represen- tations. They may be in the department but they have not yet reached my desk. I think, Mr. Speaker, you answered the second part of the question. Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur): I should like to address a supplementary question on this matter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is there any possibility of the minister's department taking action through some form of embargo in the case of this particular order so the Canadian manufacturer will have the opportunity of filling the contract? Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Unlikely. Mr. Badanai: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that buses now manu- factured in Fort William are equipped with diesel motors manufactured in Britain? That being so, would the minister not consider that it would be a good thing, in view of the policy of the government to divert pur- chases to Britain- Some hon. Members: Order. Mr. Badanai: -to promote the sale of buses manufactured in Fort William, thus increasing- [Mr. Badanai.] Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. member take advantage of the budget debate, upon which we are going to enter this day. PIPE LINES QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF GAS CORPORATION SHARES On the orders of the day: Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider having an inquiry made into the grave charges by Le Devoir that consequent upon the purchase of a provincially owned gas pipe-line com- pany by the Quebec Natural Gas Corporation, shares in this company were purchased by the legal firm of which the present lieutenant governor of Quebec is a partner? Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is departing from the field of jurisdiction of the ministry in asking a question of that kind. I am willing to hear on what basis he pro- poses to ask the question. Mr. Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I read the rules of the house one cannot refer to Her Majesty or the Governor General but I did not realize-I may be in error-that this extended to the office of lieutenant governor. Since the lieutenant governor is appointed and paid by the federal government I feel this is a very proper ques- tion, inasmuch as no one would want action that would reflect on that office. I think we would all agree that the conduct of anyone occupying the important position of lieutenant governor of any province should be beyond reproach. Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot accept that question. It seems to me that if any mention or reference to the conduct of a representative of Her Majesty is to be made in the house it should be by a substantive motion. That is the only proper way to bring such a matter before the house. It could be done that way, but I feel it should not be done by an inferential question. HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORIZE CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTICIPATING PROVINCES, ETC. On the order: Third reading of Bill No. C-30, an act to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.- The Minister of National Health and Welfare. Mr. Speaker: I understand that by unani- mous consent the house is prepared to con- sider this order, third reading of Bill No. C-30, notwithstanding the fact that this day bas been set aside for the budget debate. Is that correct? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the third reading of Bill No. C-30, to amend the Hospital In- surance and Diagnostic Services Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed. THE BUDGET ANNJAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means. Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night the Minister of Finance paid tribute to the blue news in the budget. I think I should like to pay a suitable tribute to the record- breaking overtones of red that were in the annual financial accounts. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I approach this task I want to say I noted, as probably did the minister, the correspondent Adelphi's com- ment in the Financial Post last week when he was referring to the Prime Minister of Great Britain in complimentary form. He said this: -Only a fool likes criticism, only a fool resents it. I, of course, have received in the past a fair amount of criticism from the minister when he was sitting on this side of the house. Before too much criticism, may I say that there are naturally some features in the minister's proposals that I think will receive fairly general endorsation, although not too many in this particular budget. I can think of his proposal with respect to a gift to a spouse of real property up to a limit of $10,000. I think of certain additions to the list of sales tax exemptions to municipalities. I commend the minister for his references to the amendment to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I appreciate that, coming from a mining area as I do. How- ever, I would point out that the assistance still would be at least $5 million short of the maximum assistance provided in one of the years of the previous administration. I think perhaps I should commend him for taking the tax off cut flowers; probably it helped me to some extent this morning. But on the whole I do not think anyone could better the present Minister of Finance, The Budget-Mr. Benidickson good orator that he is, in driving home small talk with a sledgehammer. I think of his peroration and I think also of his remarks last December 6, when he was speak- ing to the estimates of his department. At that time, as recorded on page 2009 of Hansard for that date, he said: -We trust that the committee will however recog- nize the boldness of the government's program and the extent to which it will contribute to confidence and prosperity. He was referring to 'tax reductions, Mr. Speaker, from that date to the end of the fiscal year, some five months, amounting to only $26 million. Again on Tuesday night in his speech to this bouse he referred to his "bold" budget. I refer to page 1250 of Hansard. The Minister of Finance said: We have sought to face our difficulties squarely and to prescribe bold courses to meet them. The tax reductions total only $8 million for the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I want to assert that in my view people are fast becoming disenchanted with rhetoric and thespian appeal only, and this dodge of too much government by bluff and by bragging. I should like to refer to the deficit. This bas received a considerable amount of at- tention in the press. I said on Tuesday night in my few remarks that I should like to say more about the prominent figure of $640 million produced by the minister after I had an opportunity to examine the complicated figures in Hansard. Out of office the Con- servatives professed themselves in favour of less spending and balanced budgets. One can certainly argue for spending and deficits if they are not aimless but rather are planned, comprehensive and vigorous enough proposals to provide incentive, to provide lift, to perk up the economy. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an analysis of this budget will show that the deficit is more attributable to political commitments than to economic theory or for the relief of unemployment. Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South): How about the old folks? Mr. Benidickson: There was nothing in this budget with respect to the old folks. It results from piecemeal and unrelated meas- ures. A deficit we can understand, but a deficit plus record unemployment shocks the country. The minister's financial leadership, now for almost a year, I suggest bas solved neither deficit nor unemployment. He bas added to both. In so far as the gross national product Is concerned, while the minister used a lot of words in his budget the other day he refer- red to it in a very passing way, and with what I felt was an inadequate build-up of 1463JUNE 20, 1958 1464 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the base to give confidence that the figure he He went on to say that housing and gov- finally produced is one upon which we can ernmental expenditures weuld be up perhaps rely. It is quite possible to juggle accounts 14 per cent, but I draw attention to the with respect to expenditures, as we saw the relative volume of investment in both ac- other night, but you cannot juggle accounts counts. Here we bave, then, littie to build up of revenues. "What will be", as the song confidence that the gross national product goes, "will be." estimate la semething that wo ran rely upon. The minister forecast revenues in 1958-59 As reported at page 1235 of Hansarc of last of $4,660 million, down $387 million. Now, Tuesday the minister starts off by saying this: if this is to be realized the minister must be Assuming- reasonably good as a prophet with respect And it is a big assumption. to his estimate of gross national product, -normal crops, stable pricea and no untoward which he suggested on page 1235 of Hansard external events, I am basing My revenue forecasts would be $32 billion. on a gross national produet of $32 billion, which as about 2 per cent above the level achieved in I want to raise the question before the 1 members of the house, is he a good prophet? First of all, has be made out any real case As I say, be does that without giving us for his estimate? I want to compare his pres- an explanation of the components of that entation, before tossing out this figure, with very important figure. He says "assuming a similar presentation prior to a prediction normal crops". We ail hope that normal of the gross national product made by his crops will prove to ho the result in 1958, but predecessor on March 14 of last year. I refer already we are getting not tee optimistic to Hansard pages 2216 and 2217 of March 14, reports as to moisture conditions in the 1957. western provinces. Before suggesting in any way what the gross With respect to capital investment, we national product might be the finance minis- normally get from the minister e! trade ter at that time referred to some of the com- ponents in the gross national product. He of the white paper that we bad to smoke out made reference to capital investment, and te of the present Minister of Trade and Com- the fact that the Minister of Trade and Com- merce if Marcb, but which in its first page merce, by his white paper, showed that made clear that the calculations were based capital investment was likely to increase by in December otat a. 7 per cent. Another component, namely com- modity exports, according to Mr. Harris I wonder whetber we are to expect in this "should continue to increase through 1957." debate the usual revised estimate cf capital They did increase in 1957. Another component investment from the Minister of Trade and was consumer expenditures, and Mr. Harris Commerce. I know that last week before a said "these should continue to grow in 1957." congressional committee in the United States He referred to the fact that a considerable a new figure was produced, and it by ne increase in wage rates was built in through means beld up to the expectations preduced wage agreements recently made. Another com- at the beginning o! this year respecting ponent was farm income, and the minister business capital investment plans. of finance of that day said this should be In addition, I think some doubt is cast on maintained unless the grain crops in the the probability of the minister's forecast west were disappointing. He referred to the when we look at bis own forecast cf revenues labour force, and said he did not believe he for the coming year. I refer to page 1241 o! "could count on as large an increase as in Hansard of last Tuesday He referred tn per- the previous year." sonal income tax. He suggested that this tax What in this budget have we had te would be down $129 million in the coming establish the minister's estimate as a base year. He referred te corporate income tax. estalishtheHe suggested that this fax would be down for the gross national product? As reported $215 million. He referred te sales tax. Sales at page 1235 of Hansard, blandly he said ax, o! course, would be related te consumer this: expenditures, a cemponent of the gross na- -there are hopeful signs that we have reached the tional product. He suggested that this tax end of the recent decline. would rise, despite a population increase, by With respect to investment intentions-I only 2 per cent for the coming year. see nothing to justify a prediction of a rise Another component o! the gross national in the gross national product-the minister product, or baving a very important offect said this: upun it, weuld bo experts. As the bouse Present investment intentions of business for capital outlays in 1958 are about 11 per cent below the 1957 level. this year experts are down $21 million. So [Mr. Benidickson.] JUNE 20, 1958 where out of any of these figures does one' get comfort in thinking there will be a rise in the gross national product of 2 per cent, unless it comes-something which the min- ister discounted-from an increase in prices? I suggest that the minister seems to have taken probably the most optimistic of all advice in calculating the gross national product. That leaves some doubt in the first instance, when we consider this matter of deficit, as to whether the revenue estimate of $4,660 million is attainable. But on the ex- penditure side we had this striking sentence in the minister's speech: -we propose to eliminate the balance remaining in the national defence equipment account. That amount was $165 million. That is an item to which a considerable portion of the press did not give very much prominence. This fund was set up by the predecessors of the minister in order to help NATO. I sug- gest that this is an item that is being raided at the present time in a bookkeeping man- ner to help the Conservative party. In looking at this budget in ensuing days I suggest that we confine ourselves to current operations. This particular kind of calculation is just about the equivalent of the minister saying, "Well, in days past my predecessors Mr. Harris and Mr. Abbott had surpluses; we will use them". That is just about what the result is when you take advantage of this $165 million in this particular account. Mr. Fleming (Eglinton): But they drew on this account. Mr. Benidickson: In addition there is a very interesting thing that I think could be said. I thought the minister was very casual in his arithmetic the other night. On careful reading we find that he produced a figure which established that in the main estimates we had $5,179 million; in the supplementaries, $58 million; in the hospital insurance act provision, $70 million; and for old age security deficit, $190 million. These add up to $5,497 million. He made reference to the possibility of a deficit on the Canadian National Railways, but be did not put it in his accounts. We already have the budget proposed for this year by the Canadian National Railways. The railroad itself sug- gests that its deficit in the coming year will be $55 million. Why leave it out? Adding this amount to the $5,497 million we come to $5,552 million, versus revenue of $4,660 mil- lion. To me that provides a deficit of $892 mil- lion. Even if one takes the $5,497 million and even assuming there was any justification for the minister utilizing this $165 million as a transfer item and relating that to his The Budget-Mr. Benidickson proposed revenue of $4,660 million, I sug- gest that he was rather casual indeed in ending up with the round figure of $5,300 million, because there is a difference of $32 million in that arithmetic, as I see it. But the minister may say "What's $32 million?" Mr. Fleming (Eglinion): No, no; be does not. Mr. Benidickson: He had some other items without any price tags. He said that we must expect some payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That remains with a question mark. In addition be said there would be further "statutory require- ments," whatever that means. Again there is no price tag. He said as well that the house can expect the usual final supplementary estimates. I think this will be in the minds of bon. members when they consider the deficit figure that was presented to the bouse and the country. This presents, I admit, quite a guessing game to any person who is now examining these accounts. As I pointed out the other night, there is nothing here to suggest that the friend of the government, Mr. Frost, can expect his $78 million which, if he were to obtain, it would mean that an additional $150 million would have to go to the other prov- inces on the basis of equalization. Another interesting point is that no men- tion whatsoever was made in the budget with respect to civil servants' salaries. They are negotiating with the government, I under- stand, for a 12 per cent increase, but sup- posing the figure were 8 per cent the cost of that increase would be $100 million. There is nothing here about the oft-discussed pen- sions for superannuated civil servants. Even the new item, produced with a considerable flourish the other night-the additional sub- sidy of $2j million for gold mines-does not seem to have been provided for. The other night the minister made much of the appropriateness of the timing of pro- posals presented by him as financial leader of the country within the last year. I suggest that, on the contrary, the failure to realize what was happening, months after he took office, has resulted in the failure to act. As far back as last November the Trades and Labour Congress of this country called for action; they predicted that during the winter 500,000 persons would be unemployed. The Prime Minister brushed off this estimate, suggesting that these people were alarmists. That prediction, as everybody knows, proved to be conservative. I say the minister was so busy charging other people with thinking us into a depression that he did not do all HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Benidickcson he should have done, in conjunction with his budget advisers, to think us out of the depression. There is no bold new program provided by this government. I think it is most evident that the thinking which has taken place in past months has been preoccupied with elec- tions, past and forthcoming, and not with matters of economics. The minister would say the bad signs were not there, and we have heard some suggestion that the previous administration was unduly optimistic; but allow me to point out that in the papers presented to us the other day the minister himself confesses that he, fairly early, had information upon which I consider he should have- acted promptly. At page 1232 of Hansard for June 17, 1958, the minister said: Some slow-down in economic activity was to be expected after the excessive pace of 1955 and 1956, a pace which was straining our resources of men and materials despite very large borrowing abroad. What was there in the budget of 1957 which would have given good counsel to the min- ister? At page 2217 of Hansard for March 14 of that year Mr. Harris, who was then min- ister of finance, said: Ail in ail, I believe, there is a good possibility that the inflationary pressures which have been present throughout the past year may begin to moderate during the coming year. He went on to say in a cautionary way that the increases in exports might not be as great as they had been, and again in that same speech he said: I do not believe we can count on obtaining as large an increase in the labour force. At page 2217 again, in the 1957 budget report, Mr. Harris also said: Corporate profit margins show signs of narrowing. We have found that that was indeed a pretty good prophecy. The minister, however, boasted the other night of good timing. I suggest that during last fall and winter we in this country had very little except soothing words from the new ministers, particularly from those most identified with the recession, namely the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, and indeed the Prime Minister himself. The Minister of Finance said on November 23, 1957, that there was no national emergency in unemployment. "The number of people employed in mid-October is the highest in Canada's history." He said if this was a national emergency all he could say was that practically every country in the world would like to have a national emergency like it. I contrast that with what the minister said the other day in his budget papers, and I refer once more to page 1232 of Hansard for [Mr. Benidickson.] 'June 17. In reporting upon the affairs of the country under his administration he said: By mid-1957 the value of large capital projects being started began to run behind the value of projects being completed. On the same page he said: -during 1956 capital expenditure was rising at a rapid rate while in 1957 investment outlays as a whole first levelled out and then declined slightly. The slow-down in the rate of capital investment was accentuated by the inventory liquidation which developed toward the end of the year. That is to say, toward the end of 1957. Again, with respect to unemployment, was the minister not aware of these things? At page 26 of the white paper provided to this house the day before the budget speech we find the following words: There were more persons with jobs in each month of 1957 than in the corresponding period of 1956, but in the fourth quarter of the year the gains became progressively smaller as employment began to show the effects of the levelling out in production. And at page 27 of the white paper we find the following words: The low in unemployment occurred in June, 1957, when 162,000 persons were jobless, compared with 117,000 during the same period in 1956. From the third quarter to the end of 1957 unemployment just about doubled and there were 386,000 jobless persons in December compared with 186,000 a year earlier. What was the Minister of Finance really saying to the country? This surely is indic- ative of his thinking at that time. On Decem- ber 8, when speaking to the Dominion Com- mercial Travellers Association meeting, he is quoted as saying that "a decline in the volume of our imports is too fractional to be a cause of concern." On December 6 last, in presenting the estimates of his department to this bouse, he said he was still prepared to accept the estimates of revenue of his pre- decessor. The Minister of Labour, as late as March 8 last at a press conference in Van- couver, said, "We are over the peak." With what did these words meet within a matter of a few days? The figure for unem- ployment produced by the dominion bureau of statistics showed there were 35,000 more unemployed people in the month of March than there were in February. Once again we hear soothing words from the Minister of Finance. The other night he said that hope- ful signs are here, that "we have reached the end of the decline." There is no one in this house who does not hope the minister is correct; but the ministers I have quoted, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and indeed the Queen's first minister, have misread the economic signs so often in the past that there is some doubt cast upon the assertions now being made. I do not want to be a Jeremiah continually today, but we have to be realistic. 1466 JUNE 20, 1958 Another item which I think should get more attention than simply the absolute re- duction in the number of unemployed is the rate of reduction. I find that registration at the unemployment commission's offices in the worst previous year of our post-war de- pression, which was 1955, went down between mid-March and mid-April from 633,000 to 556,000, which is a drop of 12 per cent. But this year at mid-April the figure was 884,000, down 30,000, it is true, but the rate of drop instead of being 12 per cent was 3 per cent. I should like to say a few words now about trade, although during the forthcoming debate many others in this party will have something to say on this all-important subject. I re- ferred to it briefly on Tuesday night. I spoke then of what I regarded as the seeming ham-handedness and the casting of a pre- conference chill over such things as the forth- coming commonwealth conference, particularly with respect to the proposed tariffs affecting British wool imports. I said that the same thing had been done, in my opinion rather ineptly, just prior to the Mont Trem- blant conference last year. It does not seem to me that actions of this kind are likely to be very encouraging to the delegates to this assembly. We also remember very recently how vigorously we all cheered-and none of us more than the government members of this house-the speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If anything I think his visit to North America, stripped of economic jargon, was basically intended to suggest ways of making the capitalist system work in the cold war. He wanted to persuade us all that we needed some new economic thinking on the part of the west. This, I think, has bread and butter implications for Canada. I think, again in relation to the budget the other night, of the forthcoming visit, not far off, of President Eisenhower. But despite this approaching visit, which is of great import- ance, the Minister of Finance unnecessarily, I think, took time out in the usual hot-headed way he bas with respect to the United States to introduce this subject which was so much discussed during the recent political activities. To me this business of stirring up anti-United States sentiment played up as an election issue is not desirable. I refer to the remarks of the Minister of Finance as reported at page 1237 of Hansard. What is the basis of all this? Can it be that it is largely personal pique? Time magazine of April 26, 1958, referred after the election to what it called the flying visit to Washington of the minister for ex- ternal affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and then the article said: Since they were in town, the two ministers decided also to drop in on their two U.S. counter- parts. Commerce Secretary Sinclair Weeks turned The Budget-Mr. Benidickson out to be too busy to see Churchill in his office, but that evening the two managed to link arms at a cocktail party. I have no critical reference to make to the latter part, but I wonder if it is pique that is responsible for continued affronts to a country which continues to be Canada's best customer. I think there is still rankling in the mind of the government this phrase, after their last attempt to do something con- structive and important in this field, when so much emphasis was given to the phrase "we fixed 'em". I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you were a businessman with one big customer and a number of smaller ones and you wanted to enlarge your business, you would try to be nice to all your customers; you would not tell your big customer, "I want to do business with more people, so I want to do less with you". That would be very unwise and I suggest not likely. The Gordon commission suggested in its report that in times of recession-and we have such times now-it would be found that our exports to the United States would hold up better than our exports overseas. This happened in 1957 and it is happening today. In 1957 our ex- ports to the United Kingdom fell by $75 million, while our exports to the United States rose by $51 million. I have no doubt we will have a further opportunity to consider what the govern- ment has in mind by its reference in the budget speech to dumping. We will have a statute and be able to examine the language of that statute and debate it in due course, so I do not propose to go into this subject to any great extent. The announcement of the change in the dumping laws will have to be examined in the light of the legisla- tion when it is brought down, but on its face it appears to be another "back to Bennett" item repeating his very special kind of dumping laws which consumers in this country will remember. From what the minister has already said it appears that there is great danger that these dumping laws will be used as a weapon to harass producers in other countries rather than as a legitimate instrument of government economic policy. One of our most serious and justified complaints against the Americans-and this was referred to in the minister's speech the other night-is that they use regulations of various kinds to keep out our exports. The minister's remarks with regard to this appear on page 1237 of Hansard. Today it looks as if, with this new weapon which the minister is adopting, we are in danger of doing exactly what so angers us when the United States do it; and we are doing it just prior to this 1468 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Benidickson very important visit by the President of the of the more difficult winter ahead in 1957-58. United States and Mr. Dulles. This indicates that on May 13, 1958, there This is typical of some of the ineptness was nothing very planned or striking in the which has preceded conferences of the public works proposais of tbe present govern- greatest importance to this country. We are ment. not fooling anybody by this, particularly our In addition I remind the minister that best customers. The other day in Washington when he spoke on his estimates on December the United States ambassador to Canada, 6, 1957, he said very clearly that where Mr. Merchant, appearing before the Senate there are expenditures that involve construc- foreign relations committee had this to say: tion which means employment, items would Mr. Diefenbaker can be expected to continue to not be reduced. I draw bis attention to protest eloquently and with vigour what he con- the fact that not long afterward he was siders protectionist action by the United States, called upon to approve a warrant to be while at the same time yielding to protectionist pressure groups in Canada by imposing restrictions on certain categories of imports. penditures for the balance of the year. The warrant is dated February 15, 1958, and itHow is trade to be enlarged by this kind discloses reductions in construction votes of procedure? totaîîing aîmost $20 million. There is a Now I should like to make reference to a reduction in construction votes of $11,501,636. subject which has been discussed several From that must be deducted some increases times this session, namely the public works in construction votes but tbey amount to only program of this government. I said when $66,576, leaving a net reduction of $11,435,060 speaking on the first interim supply bill in the ordinary accounts, plus reductions for that one can of course argue for spending construction in the ban accounts of $8,501,490 and deficits in a recession. The government making a total o! $19,936,550. would like the people of Canada to believe There is altogether too much rbetoric and that the new high expenditures and large fot enough reality in some o! the actions deficit are due to deliberate planning and o! this government, and as I bave said the an unusually large public works program. public will soon realize this. Too much of With the present government's Madison what we hear proves to be pretty empty, Avenue technique to which we have become almost phony wben it receives careful ex- accustomed, I think they have been some- amination. I want to bring the house right what successful in attaining this objective. up to date. If there is anything the govern- Articles in the press have certainly tended ment bas done about wbich we bave beard to foster this idea. A big play was made by much in recent weeks it bas been tbe stepsthe Prime Minister with the word "launch" it took with regard to the housing program. when he spoke of the launching of a vast Reference to bousing bas predominated from program of public works. Of course he linked t with it a big program to combat unemploy- and we hv he a greatde about the ment. bousing programn of this government in termis Careful examination of the figures, as I o! it being a work-creating measure. have pointed out previously this session in the house, quickly reveals that the figures presented are largely normal spending by a government, expenditures that would be rom the press than the government's $350 presented by any government. They are not million bousing program. Indeed witb typical new; they would be provided in good times flair and a typical sense o! publicity value or bad. In confirmation of that statement I the throne speech debate itself was inter- wish to make reference to table 3 in a press rupted to permit the house to deal witb statement presumably put out by the Minister amendments to the National Housing Act. of Finance on May 13, when he was releasing lb was sio e a mesuend the main estimates in this house for the it wasst imortnt tha te medmnt coming year. This table has been broken be pse ioving th e n ue of$5 down into four headings: "Administration mill for hos wh c oud make and operation", "Building, works and equip- ment", "Grants, subsidies and other items" a matter of a week or perbaps two weeks and "Recoverable items". The total allot- after this splashy and very well-buckstered ment for "Buildings, works and equipment" window dressing we found that this proposal for the period 1958-59 is $927.3 million as was just as empty as are so many other compared with $923.5 million for the 1957-58 proposals that are well advertised; as empty period provided by the previous administra- as a bird's nest in December. tion in a time of economic inflation and with After the bil was passed by this bouse very little thought when under preparation the subject o! the government's housing [Mr. Benidickson.m JUNE 20, 1958 program could only command from the press and from the public the usual yawning. But the truth comes out. I want to read what the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had to say with respect to this additional $350 million, when he appeared before the standing committee on finance of the other house on Thursday, June 5, 1958 as recorded at page 29 of the minutes of proceedings of that committee. Mr. Bates said: -we are standing merely on residual loans . .. It is my opinion . . . that by the end of the year, if we got into it again in September- He was referring to direct lending. -we might have spent $30 million or something of that kind- -by the end of the year. What a contrast between rhetoric and deeds, promises and performance. If there is anything in the new budget that probably had a chance of making an appeal to the average member of the public I think it was the reference to deducting for income tax purposes certain prescription drugs. Actually this again is a window dressing item, because in the budget brought in by Mr. Harris last year a standard deduction of $100 was provided to all taxpayers, and at that time on advice of the officials of the depart- ment the minister said that about 75 per cent of the taxpayers of the country had not put in claims of this kind and therefore it was a clear, new deduction. I think the Minister of Finance has been found out on this, too. Just yesterday the Financial Post, a very authoritative and highly respected financial publication in this coun- try, commented on the new budget in these words: There is flashy political appeal in some of Finance Minister Fleming's tax changes, but when citizens get them digested and when they figure out what the changes could actually mean to them, there will be widespread disappointment. Making drugs and medicines, eyeglasses and arti- ficial eyes, ambulances and laboratory services exempt from income tax, will catch popular fancy. But the 3 per cent of income limit on such income tax deductions, which Mr. Fleming retains, still means that very few people will be sick enough to get any benefit whatever from the change. If the Tories wanted to do anything significant on reducing this human burden, they should have lowered the 3 per cent figure so long recommended by tax experts and then the sick would have had an honest benefit. The same thing applies to some of the other income tax changes announced. These gestures will look and sound good in the constituencies, but they will mean very little or nothing to all but a very few people-and very, very little of them. I will have additional opportunities in the further stages provided in the budget debate to comment on some of the other items of the budget, but I want to repeat what I said on Tuesday evening; that contrary to what The Budget-Mr. Argue the minister said then there is nothing in this budget which suggests bold courses. We have a deficit not by design but by default. There is nothing new in the budget either for jobs or for business. I therefore move the following amendment, seconded by my deskmate, the hon. member for Bonavista- Twillingate (Mr.. Pickersgill): That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "this house regrets that the governinent, in its budget proposals, has failed to cope satisfactorily with the problems of the recession in spite of the largest peacetime deficit in Canadian history and that it is moving towards greater trade restrictions at a time when other countries in the western world are moving in the opposite direction." Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I think the wording of the amendment should recommend it to the house and to the country. Certainly our group is quite happy to support the amendment as it has been moved. I be- lieve that by the time I draw to the conclusion of my remarks my colleagues, who are very good draftsmen, will be able to hand me a subamendment which will also commend it- self to the country. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on his facility in both languages and I say to him quite sincerely that I envy him in this regard. I was most interested in his budget speech. I can only say that I wish he had presented such a comprehensive budget state- ment in the last parliament a few months ago. I also want to commend the bon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) on his effort as financial critic for the official opposition. I enjoyed his remarks. In fact when there was a lot of punch in them I enjoyed them exceedingly. I congratulate him on the effort he made. I think this budget will be taken by the people of Canada as something of a shock. One hears of shock treatment being used at times by the medical profession. I think the budget is shock treatment for the people of the country. It demonstrates that we on this side of the house were right when we said in the last parliament that the government owed it to the country to present a compre- hensive budget that would hide nothing and would show the true financial picture of the nation. That was not done. There was no budget in the last parliament. There was no comprehensive statement as to what would happen in the ensuing fiscal year. What did we have last session? When the government was criticized about economic conditions the main thing we had was the waving before the house of a so-called secret document that had been presented to the former government and not divulged by them. We had a motion in the house the other day HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Argue asking that the up to date version of the same secret document be now divulged, and the government would have nothing to do with it. I think the document that should have been divulged before the election is the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. If that document, which was kept secret until after the election, had been available to the people of the country I have no doubt that the results of the election would have been a great deal different; because the government, by refusing to disclose the economic facts facing the nation, was able to camouflage the true position of the country and to benefit in a political sense. This is an ice water budget which I think will awaken the people of Canada to the fact that on March 31 they were cheated, as has been proven by the government's lack of action since that date. I sat on this side of the house for many years with members of the present govern- ment, and I was just as energetic in criticism of the former government as I am now. I had expected until a very few weeks ago, as a matter of fact, that the government would continue for some time on the road it took last session, a road of progressive legis- lation, a road to improve the economic lot of the ordinary people of the country. But I have been fooled. They have now halted that for- ward progress. The Conservative party which goes by a hyphenated name- Mr. Fleming (Eglinton): It is not hyphen- ated. There is no hyphen in it. Mr. Argue: A double name, two separate names. Mr. Pearson: Double-barreled mediocrity. Mr. Argue: Last session we saw the pro- gressive face of the Progressive Conservative party but now we see the conservative face, the Tory face with the mask off. This is a Tory budget, this is a depression budget, this is a recession budget. The best the Minister of Finance can forecast in the budget is that things are going to stay as bad as they now are throughout this year. Mr. Fleming (Eglinion): Oh, no. Mr. Argue: He forecast a 2 per cent in- crease in the gross national product. The in- crease in the population of the country is ordinarily about that figure, so we are going to remain just where we are with widespread unemployment, with the agricultural industry in a state of depression and in many parts in almost total collapse, without any policy, without any action by the government to improve the economic position of the people of the country. [Mr. Argue.] The Minister of Finance is a great master of words. He has shown us that he can cham- pion either side of a cause with equal ease and facility. Mr. Pickersgill: And equal volume. Mr. Argue: He has contradicted himself so often in the budget that it is a double-bar- reled budget with the barrels pointing in op- posite directions. What did he say before he had completed one full page of his address as it appears in Hansard? As found on page 1231 of Hansard of June 17 he said: Foremost among the factors which we must keep in mind in reviewing the year 1957 is the record population increase of 552,000, an increase which brought our population at year-end to 16.9 million. About half of this growth was the result of natural increase and about half was due to the exception- aliy high level of immigration. Some idea of the economic importance of this great increase can be gained from the fact that there are only three Canadian cities with a popula- tion in excess of half a million people. Then he went on: Population growth of itself does not ensure pro- gress, but in a country such as ours it bas a special significance. It provides a greater market for our agricultural produce and for the products of our factories and reduces our vulnerability to changes in external demand. It brings us a greater diversity of talent and the means of employing it to better advantage. It reduces the per capita cost of supply- ing essential services in this great land. Here we have outlined all the advantages of an increase in population, half of which was brought about by natural increase and the other half from immigration, yet the government chokes off immigration as one of its first actions on taking office. They choked off immigration which, according to the words of the Minister of Finance, had done so much for the economic welfare of this country. We have double talk from the Minister of Finance. During the last session we heard a great deal about the improvement that was to be made in the old age pension, the improvement in the position of people obtaining social security benefits. We welcomed the improve- ment. What were we told? We were told that the improvement for the old age pen- sioner was nôt the end but was only the beginning. The Prime Minister said he was having an inquiry made into the social security system in the United States, and he was in a hurry to have this inquiry made. He appointed Professor Gordon Huson and set out a tight timetable of three or four months for the work. The professor said it was not long enough, so he was promptly dropped and another man, Dr. Robert Clark of the University of British Columbia, was ap- pointed. The aim was to get a report within 1470 JUNE 20, 1958 three or four months so that Canada would have the advantage of an improved social security system. Well, the report has not yet been made, though it is more than four months since Professor Clark was appointed. More im- portant, when I asked the Prime Minister on May 30 when a report would be received, and whether when it was received action would be taken this session to improve the old age pension, what did he say? He said, as re- ported at page 677 of Hansard for that date: As to whether or not action will be taken at this session of parliament, I must say that having regard to the tremendous amount of work yet to be done as set out in the speech from the throne, I would not expect it would be possible to give considera- tion to the report, even if received now, to enable any legislation to be brought in at this session. The people of Canada have been fooled and hoodwinked in this regard, because they expected an early report. They expected early action. Why should parliament not sit for another three or four days this session- let us assume it would be a long debate-to discuss and pass legislation providing for an improved system of social' security? The reason there is no hurry now is not that there is so much legislation before the house, the reason is that the election is over. The ur- gency is over, and there is plenty of time to consider the matter during another session of parliament at some time in the future. I ask the Minister of Finance if he has anything to say as to when such action will be taken. How much did we hear from the govern- ment before the election about the need to Increase commonwealth trade? This was the big pitch of the Conservative party. They were going to increase commonwealth trade, and they were going to call a conference. They did call a conference, and they received an offer which they have not yet answered. It made them dizzy when they heard it, and they have not yet recovered sufficient equilibrium to provide a reply. We thought we were going to hear something about the government's plans for freer trade, but we did not hear anything in the budget last year. We thought there might be something in the budget this year. However, the budget contains the same old Tory policy all the way through of higher and higher tariffs, more and more obstruction to international trade. This policy is not going to help industries or the people who work in industries. I suggest it is directed toward helping some of the management; it may help a few of the owners. The report of the tariff board on the woollen industry says this policy will not save the industry. If the government wanted to take action, instead of putting up the tariff why did The Budget-Mr. Argue they not remove the excise tax on clothing? This would have increased the home market for woollens and other goods. Why not provide full employment, with the resultant tremendous increase in demand for textiles that would follow such a program? There has been no planning on trade. There is nothing in the budget except a reversion to the old Tory policy of higher and higher tariffs. I thought last session that perhaps the new look of the Conservative party might stay. I thought perhaps the Prime Minister would use his influence, and would have sufficient influence in the cabinet, to break down trade barriers and to overcome the Tory members of the cabinet. He lost out if he did try, and I do not know whether or not he did. This provision in the budget for higher and higher tariffs has all the earmarks of being made on Bay street, or having been written in the board room of the Toronto stock ex- change. Certainly the budget contains nothing for the ordinary people of this country. I know the Minister of Finance took a long time to outline the various reductions in excise taxes, the increased exemption for medical expenses, the little here and the little there. However, there is not very much in total, only $8 million over a year as com- pared to the $26 million in the legislation brought in last year. I have a statement here, the source of which I shall give a little later on. It was made about similar reduc- tions in a budget not so long ago. The state- ment is as follows: It is an illusory budget. It proposes changes, large in number but small In individual extent in every case, and seeks to create the impression of importance by their mere multiplicity. The banquet table is long. It is well dressed. The best silver and china are used. The lackeys are well-trained. But the fare is thin. The guests have left unsatisfled. This was a statement by the present Min- ister of Finance in this house on March 21, 1957, as recorded at page 2553 of Hansard. I believe that is a far more appropriate and more accurate description of this budget than I am able to give. This government, with its double talk, with its progressive face of last year and its Tory face of this year, is just as inconsistent in all its actions. We heard a great deal about the government wanting to help education in this country by providing further grants to assist young peo- ple in obtaining an adequate education. There is really nothing in this budget except to coax the corporations to do some of the things that the government itself could be doing by way of grants for education. The Minister of Finance had this to say as far HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget--Mr. Argue as the application of income tax law is con- cerned, as reported at page 1244 of Hansard: It is important that income tax law should receive constant attention to ensure the greatest degree of equity in its operation. Yet the dividends from investments in cor- porations are still, to a very substantial ex- tent, not taxable. We find that a married person can earn $11,350 without paying any income tax whatsoever with the exception of $60 old age security tax. Is there any equity amongst Canadian taxpayers with this provision still remaining in the budget? Have any steps been taken to tax into the federal treasury some of the enormous spec- ulative profits that are being made in the gas pipe-line corporations of this country? How roundly the Conservatives criticized the Liberal government for their actions in connection with gas pipe lines. If we pick up almost any paper in recent days we find that Conservatives all over this country, whether they be high-placed Conservatives in Ontario or high-placed Conservatives with another name in the province of Quebec, have all got their elbows or their arms into this very lucrative deal, or as somebody says, their nose in the trough. They are still exempt. There is no capital gains tax. Yet the minister talks about equity in taxation. Here is another instance where we find the government talking both ways. Before the election they said they were going to call another conference or reconvene the federal-provincial conference. That cate- gorical statement was made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance. But there is not a word about it in the budget, not a sound or a breath. Before the election the calling of a conference was announced. After the election no interest is shown in the conference. The agricultural producers of this country expected fair treatment by this government. They put great stock in the Agricultural Stabilization Act passed in this house last year, and in the clause which said that floor prices would be established in relation to the cost of production taking into considera- tion the farmer's investment and a fair labour income. The farm organizations came down here a few weeks ago after the election and said to the government, "What are the cost of production figures?" The government said, "We do not have any; there are no statistics available". The legislation says the farmer is to have the cost of production, but the government are not trying to find out what the cost of production is. As I said earlier in the session, the western producers expected that deficiency payments on grain would be made. To show their con- fidence that something would be done, after rMr. Argue.] the election was over they came to Ottawa and asked for deficiency payments of some- thing in excess of $220 million in total on two crops of grain. But in the budget there is not a word about that, not a breath. In calculating this huge deficit, no account has been taken of the possibility of deficiency payments on western grain for the last two crops. I say that at this moment this govern- ment has turned thumbs down on the farmers' request for deficiency payments. I say that the government has failed to fulfil that promise, and at this moment has no inten- tion of fulfilling that promise; because if they had, the deficit forecast would have been much greater. The only hope for western producers at this time is to join their farm organizations in greater numbers and put a great deal more pressure on this government by way of submissions and by way of inter- views. Mr. McFarlane: Nonsense. Mr. Argue: Yes; and by way of mass dele- gations. Mr. McFarlane: Nonsense. Mr. Argue: It is absolutely apparent that this government has no intention of meeting that commitment. Why would they? Appar- ently they lost their interest in keeping their promises on March 31. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Argue: Of the 48 prairie members, they have 47, so there is no interest in it any longer. They have all the seats now but one. An hon. Member: Talk for your own party. Mr. Argue: I am going to speak on behalf of the producers of western Canada, who unanimously want deficiency payments at this time. The government talks one way in that regard before the election and the other way afterward. They blamed the former gov- ernment for widespread unemployment. They said they had a public works program that would put people back to work. An hon. Member: We have. Mr. Argue: They said they had a public works program to relieve the unemployment problem. The Minister of Finance, by his fore- cast of the gross national product in the present budget, says he does not expect there will be an improvement in employment and a reduction in the general unemployment pic- ture or in the numbers of unemployed this year. If the Minister of Finance had expected unemployment to be reduced, if he had expected the unemployment situation to be solved, of necessity he would have been 1472 JUNE 20, 1958 obliged to forecast a 5 per cent increase in the gross national product in order to have everyone working. Mr. Deputy Speaker: It ,is with regret that I must interrupt the eloquent speech of the hon. member but, it being one o'clock, I now leave the chair. At one o'clock the bouse took recess. AFTER RECESS The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. ATOMIC ENERGY ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE AT FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR TESTS Mr. Speaker: By leave of the bouse, bas the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions to make an announcement? Some hon. Members: Agreed. Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, in reverting to motions at this time I would like to make an an- nouncement concerning a matter of immediate importance respecting the projected talks on the technical methods of verifying com- pliance with an agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests. Exchanges on this question have taken place in recent weeks between the United States and the Soviet union, the latest of which was in the form of a letter dated June 13 last from the Soviet union, to which the United States has delivered its reply as of today's date. Hon. members will understand that it is not for me to make public the text of this communication, which will be released in ac- cordance with procedures agreed upon be- tween the United States and the Soviet union. It is, however, appropriate for me to an- nounce that Canada was invited to nominate a scientist to participate as one of the ex- perts on the western side. It is therefore a pleasure for me to announce the appointment of Dr. O. M. Solandt, who for many years was chairman of the defence research board and is one of Canada's great scientists. Dr. Solandt is now vice chairman of the Cana- dian National Railways in charge of research, and has agreed to make himself available for this important and exacting assignment. Dr. Solandt's name bas therefore been included in the list of western scientists contained in today's communication from the United States to the U.S.S.R. I felt that this announcement should be made in the House of Commons simultaneously Conference on Nuclear Tests Suspension with the announcement in Washington, and that hon. members should learn of the ap- pointment in this way rather than through the medium of the newspapers. Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house will have heard with great satisfaction the announcement which the Prime Minister bas been good enough to make to us. It seems to me entirely proper that a Canadian scientist should take part in these discussions because of the advances which have been made in this country in the field of atomie science. I for one am very glad that the Canadian claim has been recognized, and I can imagine no one better qualified for this assignment than Dr. Solandt. Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group may I say we are very pleased to hear the announce- ment by the Prime Minister, and to know that Canada is going to take such an active and direct part in assisting to solve this most complex and difficult problem. We are further- more very glad that such an experienced and well-known Canadian citizen has been chosen for this purpose. THE BUDGET ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE The bouse resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the bouse to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson. Mr. Argue: At one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that the Conservative party was a much different party from the Conservative party before the election as evidenced by the budget. One of the great problems remaining unsolved is the very widespread unemployment in our country. The budget is bare of any policy designed to put the unemployed back to work, and I think it is a shame and a disgrace to a nation such as our own that so much tech- nical know-how and such a vast amount of plant and men should be idle at a time when many of our people are in great need. The Minister of Finance brushed aside this aspect very quickly and lightly in his speech the other night. but he did not always brush the unemployment problem under the carpet in this way. In years gone by he was HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Argue very concerned about the question of Ca- nadian unemployment, and on March 22 of 1955 he had this to say, as reported on page 2261 of Hansard: When we entered this debate several weeks ago I am sure that all hon. members expected that the government would avail itself of this opportunity to make an announcement of whatever policy it proposed in order to grapple with a situation which is assuming emergent proportions. He went on to say: This session opened two and a half months ago with a statement by the government contained in the speech from the throne as follows: "Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature is being experienced." He said that the statement in the speech from the throne was a palpable and grotesque absurdity of understatement. That is what he said about the unemployment situation in March, 1955, at a time when there were 327,000 persons without jobs and seeking employment. However, in his budget speech, when he described the present unemployment situation as a fairly mild recession, there were no less than 556,000 persons at that time without jobs and seeking work. The minister, when be was a private member in 1955 and when unemployment was a great deal less, said something should have been done, but certainly this budget is bare with respect to action to alleviate the unemploy- ment situation. There are many things which should have been done in this budget; one thing certainly was to increase the income tax exemptions. The present exemptions of $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a married couple are completely inadequate. Because we feel there should be an increase in income tax exemp- tions, I wish to move a motion seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) as follows: That the amendment be further amended by add- ing thereto the following words: "This house further regrets that the government contemplates no action at this session to recognize the loss of purchasing power to the majority of Canadian citizens because of the lowered value of the dollar as related to consumer goods and prices, by amending the Income Tax Act so as ta raise the amount of permissible income to single and married persons without taxation. An hon. Member: How much? Mr. Argue: We have left it as a general principle rather than putting in an exact figure. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Argue: I do not mind answering ques- tions; as a matter of fact I agree with the statement made by a very prominent member of this house-the present Minister of Finance -on January 24, 1956, wherein he said that [Mr. Argue.] if the minister of finance was not prepared to go as far as Conservative policy advocated in this respect, namely $1,500 for single per- sons and $3,000 for married persons without dependants, then at least he hoped that he would take a generous step in that direction. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Fleming (Eglinion): What did we do last December? Mr. Argue: That is precisely how far we would like to see the government go. I feel the words of the Minister of Finance back in 1956 were well chosen-when he said that if the government would not go that far they should at least take a generous step forward. In the hope that there might be a single Progressive Conservative of this bouse who will support the motion, we have made it in general terms, trusting that it would com- mand the greatest amount of support. How- ever, as a direct reply to a direct question, I think the Minister of Finance was right in those days when he said the exemption should be raised to $1,500 for a single person and to $3,000 for married persons. Mr. Chown: Would the bon. gentleman permit a question? Has he figured out what such an exemption would add to the present budget deficit? Mr. Argue: I have looked into this very carefully in the light of the considered state- ment by the Minister of Finance back in 1956, and I feel that the statement he made at that time was correct. The statement the Minister of Finance made in the past was that this government would not hesitate to finance by means of a deficit. We are quite prepared to sec the deficit go to any extent necessary to put people back to work, and we are prepared to increase exemptions to this amount. We would go one step further. We would start taxing some of the mil- lionaires and some of the multi-millionaires who in recent years have made millions of dollars profit, without tax, under the policy of the former Liberal government, and who are doing the same today under the policy of the Conservative government. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor. Mr. Argue: The official opposition was tried as the government of this country for 22 years and was found wanting, and was very rightly turned out of office on June 10 last, but the new government that has taken office since is no different. They took a short step forward when they were only a minority in this bouse, but they are now back to the economic policies which resulted in their predecessors being turned out of office. We say to the people of this country at this time that there is only one movement that should be supported by people who are progressively minded, or liberally minded and that is the C.C.F. movement, and we look forward to the day when the people of this country will accept our policies. We are quite pleased with the results of the elections in the prov- ince of Manitoba which showed that the C.C.F. party is the only party in that province which is growing at this time. We ask this house to support the proposition that income tax exemptions should be increased. Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway): Would the bon. member permit a question? He said he looked forward to a day when the people will accept his policy, but in the tirade we have just heard I did not hear much about policy. I heard a good deal of criticism but no constructive suggestions. Mr. Argue: Is that your maiden speech? Mr. Speaker: Before putting the amend- ment to the amendment, may I say a word about the amendment itself, which reads, in substance: That this house regrets that the government In its budget proposals bas failed to cope satisfactorily with the problems of the recession in spite of the largest peacetime deficit in Canadian history- I accept the amendment to that point, but I raise for consideration the latter part of the amendment which seems to me to du- plicate an amendment moved on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The latter part reads as follows: -and that it is moving towards greater trade restrictions at a time when other countries In the western world are moving in the opposite direction. Now the amendment moved by the official opposition on the address in reply to the speech from the throne read: We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that a high level of employment and prosperity in Canada requires a high and expanding level of International trade, and that this will be promoted more effec- tively by vigorous measures for the expansion of trade with all countries than by efforts to divert from one country to another. It seems to me that the second half of each amendment is essentially on the same subject, and I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) would agree, in the absence of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), to the deletion of the second half of the amendment. Mr. Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with great re- spect I should like to call to your attention the fact that our earlier amendment deaIt with the question of the expansion of trade as The Budget-Amendment opposed to the diversion of trade. This amend- ment deals not with one form of trade restriction, which might be diversion, but with trade restrictions generally, and puts those trade restrictions in the context of the general policies of other countries leading in the opposite direction. In other words, the amendment seeks to draw a contrast between the trade policy embodied in this budget and the policies which are being followed by other countries in the world, and I should have thought with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that this distinguishes it from the amendment we raised to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I call this to your attention in case you may wish to give the matter further consideration. Mr. Fleming (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would wish something to be said from this side of the house on the question that has been raised. As I understand the rules of the bouse, it is that there may not be duplication of debate in the sense that when there has been a debate on a subject, that debate may not be revived during the session by the in- troduction of what is in substance the same question. It is not necessary that the second motion or amendment be in precisely iden- tical terms; it is a question whether debate on the subject is, in essence, revived by the second measure, motion, amendment, or whatever it may be, which it is sought to introduce. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has sought to distinguish the motion he intro- duced on May 13 from the second part of the amendment introduced this morning by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) by saying that they both relate to trade but that the earlier motion relates rather to the diversion of trade, thus seeking to contrast diversion of trade with expansion of trade, whereas the second half of this morning's amendment purports to condemn the government because it is said that there has been a movement toward greater trade restriction. Looking at the matter, not in terms simply of the words but in terms of the substance, it is perhaps clear that there will be some duplication of debate. At the same time, I believe that it will be the desire of all bon. members that there should be the fullest opportunity for the discussion of trade policy during this debate. In response to previous requests I reviewed the position and policy of the government in relation to trade, with particular reference to our trade relations with the United States and the efforts we are JUNE 20, 1958 1475 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell making to expand trade within the common- wealth, and while it may well be that the amendment could be more happily worded to allow the fullest discussion on those points, I for one would not wish to see any undue limitation of the discussion of the trade ques- tions and policies that are directly presented to the house by the budget. I may have my own opinion about how far this particular amendment strays away from those policies that were put before the house in the budget speech or which are raised directly or by implication in any of the budget resolutions. But, Mr. Speaker, I do think in this debate, as long as there is no trespass on the matters that were included in the earlier debate, it would be the wish of the house to have a full opportunity to discuss those questions of trade that were raised by the budget. Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to accept the view as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) with the reservation that he claims there is a distinction and perhaps I m'ay try to find a distinction in the course of the debate. No one wants to proscribe a free-ranging debate of the kind of the budget debate and I accept the second part of this amendment as relating to the fiscal policy of the government related to trade and therefore opening the door for this kind of discussion. May I now put the motion moved by way of amendment to the amendment. It is moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and seconded by the hon. mem- ber for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge): That the amendment be further amended by add- ing thereto the following words: This house further regrets that the government contemplates no action at this session to recognize the loss of purchasing power to the majority of Canadian citizens because of the lowered value of the dollar as related to consumer goods and prices, by amending the Income Tax Act so as to raise the amount of permissible income to single and married persons without taxation. Mr. Richard A. Bell (Carleton): Mr. Speaker, the house has heard two vigorous speeches from bon. gentlemen who take their roles as critics rather literally. As I listened to their rhetoric-indeed to their declamations-I was reminded of Disraeli's remark, "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct". Such congratulations as I may extend to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) I must reserve first to congratulations upon the confidence his party has demonstrated in him, and properly so, in designating him for the important and onerous role of financial critic, and second upon the pleasant manner of his speaking in this house. From the gallery of this chamber it has been my privilege to hear every financial [Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).] critic since the year 1927: Guthrie, Bennett, Ralston, Lawson, Hanson, Harris, and more recently the hon. member for Dufferin- Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the latter I suppose being the veteran budget critic of all time. The bon. member for Kenora- Rainy River in taking this role has joined distinguished company and I extend my wishes to him in the words once used by the late Ernest Lapointe, "I wish him luck, but not too much". I spoke of the onerous role of financial critic that now falls to the lot of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. Onerous and arduous that role will be for the hon. gentleman as long as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) occupies the treasury benches as Minister of Finance. But what disappointed me in the speech of the new financial critic-and I must confess it im- mediately-was that he fell into the same error as his immediate predecessor, the former member for Coast-Capilano, in at- tempting to substitute angry scattered jibes and epithets for reasoned consecutive argu- ment. May I say with respect that his was a speech conceived in angry frustration and delivered with a sense of bitter repression and electoral disappointment for these are the qualities which regrettably have -char- acterized bon. gentlemen opposite since June 10 last. Not yet have they reconciled themselves to the facts of political life. Not yet have they recovered from the complex they have of their divine right to rule. Perhaps it is because of that that in his speech and in the amendment which he moved the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has suc- ceeded in getting on both sides of every issue, has succeeded in begging any question and has succeeded in blowing hot and cold on every problem. When he was speaking I set out to refresh my memory of the words of Samuel Butler, and these are they: He was in logic a great critic Profoundly skilled in analytic He could distinguish and divide A hair 'twixt south and southwest side. On either which he would dispute, Confute, change hand and still confute. The speech of my friend the bon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was merely a political stump speech, a warmed-over elec- tion hustings version. What serious contribu- tion did the hon. gentleman make to this debate? Some hon. Members: None. Mr. Bell (Carleton): In the midst of his tirade of abuse-and that is all it was-he JUNE 20, 1958 did make one suggestion. He suggested re- moval of the excise tax on clothing made in Canada. He was apparently oblivious to the fact that under GATT we must not dis- criminate and the tax would have to be re- moved from all goods whether Canadian or imported. How would that help? That is but a sample of the confused economic thinking of hon. gentlemen opposite. I could multiply it many times but I will not take time this afternoon to do so. An hon. Member: It isn't so much con- fused economic thinking as ignorance. Mr. Bell (Carleton): I said that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River blew hot and cold. It seems to me that the Liberal critic was in favour of balanced budgets, certainly lie was opposed to the deficit in this budget but equally he was in favour of larger deficits under existing circumstances. On Tuesday night lie waxed indignant and sarcastic about the present deficit yet did he not then and does he not today advocate policies which would result in a much larger deficit? He appeared to be in favour of what lie called quick economic stimulus by way of tax cuts, yet at other times he appeared to be in favour of tax maintenance. I thought I detected today that he was in favour of reduced expenditures but he was equally in favour of and called for higher payments. He was in favour of protection for Canadian industry and against all means of protecting Canadian industry. He was in favour of the expansion of trade within the commonwealth and against all means of achieving such expansion. He was in favour of additional assistance to the provinces and to the municipalities yet rigidly adhered to the policies of the former government, rejected and discarded by the electorate, which prevented additional assistance to the provinces and the munic- ipalities of this country. He was against dumping but in favour of the legislation which permits it. Never in such a short period of time did I ever hear one speaker gore himself on the horns of so many dilem- nas and I reflected, "Oh, Consistency, thou art a jewel!" As I listened in incredulous fascination to the hon. gentleman I realized that the Liberal party continues as a house divided against itself. I realized how delicately and inde- cisively the hon. gentleman had to walk the tight rope in order to satisfy at the same time the Winnipeg Free Press and the party's eastern moguls. The amendment moved by the Liberal party which apparently is to have the support of the C.C.F. consists of what? It is nothing but sophistry, hollow equivocation, and The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell nothing could better demonstrate the political bankruptcy of the Liberal party. The C.C.F. sub-amendment certainly does not improve upon it. Mr. Deschatelets: What about unemploy- ment? Mr. Bell (Carleton): What about unem- ployment? I will tell you plenty about it and I will make it clear who is responsible for the present situation in unemployment be- fore I am done if that is the issue the hon. gentleman wants to raise. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River laboured long and hard this morning to have this house and the country believe that the conditions of recession and unemployment have been a direct result of the economic and fiscal policies of this government. In fact, he would have us believe that it was contributed to by the failure of the government to present its budget earlier, perhaps last autumn, and by other alleged deficiencies which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River described in terms rather more vivid than accurate. Let us examine these allegations. Let us put the situation in perspective. I suggest the best way to do this is to ask ourselves this question: What would have been the situa- tion in Canada today if on June 10 last, by peradventure or misadventure, my hon. .friend's party had been re-elected? I can tell you exactly what the situation would be. First, there would have been no budget or financial accounting of any kind at least until late this spring. This govern- ment did give a financial outline on Decem- ber 6 last. Hon. members opposite have screamed for an autumn budget knowing full well that there would have been none if they had been in power. Actually ahl they were doing was administering another kick to the already well-bruised Walter Harris. Second, there would have been no tax reduction as occurred last December. The Canadian people would have been deprived of the benefit of substantial tax cuts in per- sonal income, corporation and excise taxes amounting to $178 million. These present advocates of tax reductions, of a tax holiday indeed, though that was not mentioned today, would have pursued the unrealistie policies laid down in the last Harris budget. I say, that that budget was as complete a mis- calculation of the then existing economic position of this country as it was of the mood of the Canadian people. Third, there would have been no increases in old age pensions beyond the Walter Harris- William Benidickson figure of $6 a month. There would have been no increases in dis- ability pensions, in blind pensions, in war veterans allowances, no change in the Pension 1478 HOUSE OF The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell Act, no change in the Unemployment In- surance Act. Hospital insurance could not conceivably have become effective anywhere before January 1, 1959, and probably not then. The advantages of these additional large sums in alleviating a Liberally inspired and created recession would not have been available. Fourth, there would have been no addi- tional money for housing. Housing starts had almost ceased when my hon. friends opposite went out of power. Under their policy re- cession would have become full-out depres- sion. This morning the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River called the $400 million for housing, "splashy and well-huckstered window dressing." The people who are now and will be living in these homes will long remember that outrageous comment from the hon. gentleman. Fifth, I say that the tight money condition, the unwise credit restrictions, the discourage- ment of capital works and investment, basic causes of the recession, would have continued and plunged us ever deeper into an economic decline. We would have continued with the highest interest rates in our history and a general scarcity of credit. Sixth, there would have been no additional moneys made available for stepping up the program of public works and for national development. Mr. Pickersgill: Where are they? Mr. Bell (Carleton): The impact of these additional amounts upon the national econ- omy would have been lost with disastrous results to the people. Seventh, there would have been no addi- tional assistance to the provinces. The old take it or leave it attitude would have persisted. Mr. Habel: By telegram. Mr. Bell (Carleton): By telegram. That is exactly what my hon. friend understands. He understands nothing else but that type of operation. Mr. Habel: Take it or leave it, by telegram. Mr. Bell (Carleton): I have observed my hon. friend in the house for a long time and I say he ought to have lived in the days of the sailing ships because he generates enough wind to blow a ship across the Atlantic. Eighth, I say that the Atlantic adjustment grants would not have been provided. Those sections of our economy most in need of help would have been deprived of $100 million. Ninth, there would have been no program of stabilization of agricultural prices and recession would have struck the farmers of Canada in a much more vividly pronounced fashion. [Mr. Bell (Carleton).] COMMONS Tenth, the wheat surplus would have con- tinued to pile up. Sales of wheat would have continued to decline and the amount in storage would have increased. There would also have been no trade or economic con- ference. The old policy of drift, the old policy of wait and see in relation to trade with the United Kingdom would have continued. Mr. Pickersgill: No tariffs against the British. Mr. Bell (Carleton): The old policy of diverting trade from the United Kingdom to the United States would have continued. Finally, I say that without the benefit of the new policies adopted by the present government unemployment would have mounted to figures at least double those which actually occurred. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Bell (Carleton): As I have said, under the Liberal policies of credit restriction recession would have become depression. These are but a few of the consequences which might have occurred without a change in the direction of the fiscal, monetary and commercial policies of the nation. It was a change of government, a change from the principles of the last Harris budget, with which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was so intimately connected, which saved this country from a major economic disaster. It was and is the realistic policies set forth in the speech from the throne and in the budget of last Tuesday night which will direct the paths of the Canadian people to greater and more challanging development, more challenging accomplishments and goals. On Tuesday night the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River said, in an attempt to catch the headlines, that the budget was a sick budget. Did anybody in the house fail to realize on Tuesday night that ail the sick faces were on the opposite side? More properly the hon. gentlemen ought to have called it a physician's budget, a budget designed to heal the many ills to which this government fell heir from its predecessor. He claimed that it was a wait and see budget, a slow motion budget. What nonsense! Never in the whole history of our country has there been a government which has attempted so much in such a short time. Yes, never has a government moved so rapidly its objectives to accomplish. Then the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River used harsh words about the govern- ment respecting the projected deficit. He said this morning, I believe, that it was directly attributable to political commitments rather than to economie policy. What are these commitments? Which of these com- mitments would he like us to abandon? What things has the government done involving financial outlays that he would seek to have undone? I think be should have told us that. I think hon. gentlemen opposite who speak later in the debate should tell us. But, if I interpret my hon. friend correctly, and I think I do, if his policies were fol- lowed, certainly if his leader's policies had been followed, there could be no doubt that the deficit projected would have been at least $500 million more than what it is. How can he have it both ways? How can he manage, Janus-like, to face in both directions at the same time? Actually my hon. friend, I ven- ture to suggest, resembles John Bunyan's great grandfather, "but a waterman, looking one way and rowing another". No one denies that $648 million is an exceedingly sizeable surplus. Some hon. Members: Surplus? Mr. Bell (Carleton): Deficit, I am sorry. But it should cause dismay to no one. It repre- sents 12.2 per cent of our total expenditure this year. There have been many times in our history, both under Liberal and Con- servative governments, when the deficit has represented a very much higher percentage of expenditure. To go back to 1909, if you will, to the great Liberal finance minister, W. S. Fielding, he had no concern over a deficit which rep- resented 35 per cent of the total expenditure of that day. Nor had Mr. Dunning when his last budget before the 1930 election showed a deficit of 19 per cent of expenditure or when his first budget after the 1935 election showed a deficit of 14.6 per cent. Related to the gross national product, there have been many occasions when we have had larger deficits than that now projected. Nor are we alone in this country at this time with this particular problem. In the United States the best recent forecast indicated a deficit of between $11 billion and $13 billion, figures substantially higher on a per capita basis than that forecast in this budget. But the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River reserved his harshest strictures for the calculation of the amount of the deficit. In effect he alleged a type of juggling of accounts to achieve a bookkeeping deficit smaller than the actual one. He bases this upon the winding up or liquidation of the defence equipment replacement account. On Tuesday night he went overboard in alleg- ing incorrectly that provision had not been made in the deficit figure for $190 million for the old age security fund or $70 million for the hospital insurance scheme, but that The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell he corrected today. He did try, however, to bring in the C.N.R. deficit and other non- budgetary items although I am sure he is well aware from his experience that these have not been included in budgetary deficits on previous occasions. But what of his strictures regarding the defence equipment replacement account? This account was nothing more than a bookkeep- ing kitty that the former government tucked away for convenient purposes to avoid par- liamentary control of certain defence ex- penditures. At one time it was as high as $310 million. It is now $165 million. If the hon. gentleman suggests that the liquidation of the final balance of $165 million in this account distorts the budgetary position, then what does he say about the distortion when the former government reduced it by over $100 million? His argument, if it is logical and it is not, applies equally to the former government and he condemns his own col- leagues by his ill-considered blasts in this respect. I suggest to the house that there is no doubt that this account should have been eliminated several years ago. Indeed, at one time a former minister of finance ordered that it be liquidated within a period of three years. If his orders had been obeyed, what would my hon. friend have said? Would he then have charged the minister of finance with distortion, his own minister of finance with whom he served in such close relation- ship? Would he have charged him with dis- tortion of the position? This government considered, in accordance with what is its uni- versal policy, that parliamentary control of defence expenditures ought to be restored and that this bookkeeping device for circum- venting parliament ought to be abandoned. It was, therefore, an honourable, honest course and was stated clearly, specifically and openly in the budget speech. No one in the press gallery misunderstood, although my hon. friend may have done so. There was no concealment. The minister came right out in the open so that he who runs may read. I suggest this course was in re- freshing contrast to the way in which pre- vious ministers of finance were accustomed to tucking away $310 million in this account for the purpose of distorting the budgetary picture. What I want to emphasize is that this account has been a non-budgetary ac- count used, however, by previous govern- ments for budgetary purposes. This will be ended, and it will be liquidated as a non- budgetary cash requirement. The cash posi- tion of the government is not changed, but the position of parliament and parliamentary control over the expenditure is greatly changed. JUNE 20, 1958 1479 1480 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell My bon. friend spoke at some length about This article is dated Marcb 13, 1958. giving a quick, economic stimulus to our Mr. Pearson: Who said that? economy. How much additional deficit would he think would be required to meet his ob- Mr. Bell (Carleton): This is Liberal Leader jective? Certainly, the election objective of Poarson speaking, at least, I assume it is. his leader was tax cuts, both permanent tax Mr. Pearson: From what are you reading? cuts and tax holidays. This objective could bo achieved in only two ways, either by sub- Mr. Bell (Carleton): This particular clipping stantially increasing the amount of the deficit I have bore is by a most responsible press or substantially reducing the amount of other gallery reporter, Clark Davey, and the date- expenditures. My hon. friend makes no sug- lino of the article is Port Hawkosbury, Nova gestion today that would eliminate any of the Shousanci o tis ateon genle major expenditures of the government. He bas not told us, but I assume he would not bas not denied il once. want to go back to the $46 per month old age Mr. Pearson: I bave. pension for which he and his minister of finance were responsible. I assume that there are no public works he would want to illion additional foîl flat, what did ho do? eliminate. I assume, therefore, that the only In a las dosperat strategom, be promisod an way my bon. friend would go about achiev- dditional plan, a lax holiday. This tax holi- ing the election objectives of his party would hon tle o t s that? Wud h be by substantially increasing the deficit. Would he tell us what would be a proper amount of deficit, under existing circum- Mr. Pearson: Yos. stances? Suppose my hon. friend were min- Mr. Bell (Carleton>: I wil ho glad to road ister of finance today, what would his deficit that to hlm, but I am not going b ho divortod be? What would ho have done? Perhaps he from Ibis speoch. Porsonal income tax colloc- could have some of his friends who sit around lions during tho past fiscal yoar were about him tell us. In the recent election campaign a billion and a hall. A tax holiday of six the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) weeks would ropresont, as a minimum, about definitely achieved an all-time record for $175 million. There would ho possibly a total election promises and commitments. It is addilional deficit, witb what tho bon. gentlo- strange that during the six weeks of this man suggested bimsolf during tho oloction session he bas not repeated a single one of campaign, of at least $675 million, and I those election promises, those election pana- îhink I am putting it at a very modest figure. ceas. The hon. gentleman repeated not one of What bave wo heard o! Ibis tax holiday? them today, either. Have wo board il monlioned i this bouse Mr. Pearson: That does not happen tobo since the session opond? Did we hoar about true, but that is all right. il today? Has il beon confined b limbo? What Mr. Bell (Carleton): I will establish that in bave we hoard about tho doubling of the mar- just a moment. What did he promise? First, nage oxemption allowanco? Tbo Loador o! ho promised a tax cut of $400 million. Then e Opposition promisod tho marriago allow- whenanc would h incrased from $2,000 to $4,000 he raised the ante to $500 million. for tho firt tree years of marrid bliss. I ho risodIhoanlob $50 mllio. lougbl that was a shoor stroke o! polilical Mr. Pearson: That is not true, either. gonius. Would anyone in Ibis bouse doubt Mr. Bell (Carleton): I have the press that was tho belovod brain child of tho bon. clippings here if my hon. friend would like member for Bonavisla-Twillingale (Mr. Pick- me to take the time to read them.willme 1 bak thelim b rad tom.not deny tho palornity of thal. I said in the Mr. Pickersgill: Go ahead. election campaign that bbe voico was tho voico Mr. Bell (Carleton): The hon. gentleman Persiîto has not denied either of these proposals. I have the press clippings here if the hon. At first I bhought Ihat Ibis was an insuit gentleman wishes me to refer to them. Heo tho young women of Canada, Ibat such an raised the ante to $500 million. additional incenlivo 10 marriago should have Mr. Pickersgill: Produce the evidence. boon required. Thon I was bld Ibat lb applied equally bo the first marriage or bo Mr. Bell (Carleton): It is on the record tbe number of joys which apparenlly Tommy plenty of times. Here it is: Manvillo bas achiovod. What would ho the Liberal Leader Pearson has boosted the ante on his party's tax cut proposals to "perhaps $500 mil- lion from the original $400 million". Ibese anticipated tax exemptions as promised [Mr. Bell (Carleton).] JUNE 20, 1958 by the Leader of the Opposition? For th.ts groat boon ta the newlyweds, both new and ronewed, apparently the hon, gentleman who leads the opposition ascribed a figure of $25 million. The experts with whom I have con- sulted disagreo with him. They ascribe to this delectable proposal a cost of $100 million ta $125 million, but I arn unable ta discover whether they are bachelors or whethor thoy are widowers beyond redemption. I canfess that my mind is sa taken up with just the contemplation of the dolights of these pro- posals that I cannot pay much attention ta the beliefs of experts on this subi oct. After ail, they probably would seek ta controvert the well-knawn fact that two ýcan live as cheaply as one. The temptation ta tarry on such a subi ect is great, but I must hurry on ta what my hion. friend said on the subi ect of trade. Since this govornment was farmed 364 days aga it has been subi ected ta a barrage from the heavy artillery opposite on its trade policies. No other subi ect seems ta have so delighted the hon. membor for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil- lingate as the subi oct of trade. Whatever steps the governmnent bas taken, these hon. gentlemen have attacked the gaverniment. On no other subiect have they ventured into sO many inconsistencies; indeed, on trade the op- position in this parliament bas been consistent only in its inconsistencies, and it bas been given delightful leadership in that respect by the hon. member for Essex East. Mr. Martin (Essex East): I ask my hion. friend this question. What doos ho think about the British prapasal? Mr. Bell (Carleton): I will tell zny hon. friend before I am f1ished. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Tell me now. Mr. Bell (Carlet on): 1 wfll tell my hon. friend what I think of his roaction. Mn. Martin (Essex East): Tell me what yours is. Mr. Bell (Carleton): I will tell you what I think of bis reactian. In what hoe said hoe rominded me of the statement of Henri Bourassa that the only policy of liberalismn is ta have na pollcy and the only principie of liberalism is ta have no principles. Mn. Martin (Essex East): What is yours? Mr. Bell (Carleton): Over the years hon. gentlemen opposite on many occasions have vated against the holding of a commonwealth trade and economic canferonco. Some hon. Members: Rubbish. Mr. Martin (Essex East): Whon? 57071-3-94 The Budget--Mr. R. A. Bell Mr. Bell (Carleton): I will produce the evidence on another occasion. Mr. Pickersgill: Produce it now. Mr. Bell (Carleton): Year after year hon. gentlemen opposite voted against- Mn. Pickersgîll: Produce the ovidence. Mr. Bell

House of Commons Debates Vol 2 June 11 to July 15 1958

Object/Artifact

AVRO Museum

Name/Title

Entry/Object ID

Description

Category

Web Links and URLs

General Notes

Note